ABOUT Neil Garfield and Livinglies
Our mission is to educate lawyers about what is different with these loans and foreclosures impacting our society and keeping with that mission we also encourage you to attend educational workshops offered by other competent legal educators listed below that contemplate the legal consequences involving securitization, predatory lending and servicing and the evolving practice of foreclosure defense and offense:
Click to view: Lawyers – What You Need to Know
Purchase Attorney Workbooks
What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars
READ THIS: excellent-MERS-analysis-illegal-scheme-to-avoid/evade-state-law-taxes-fees-fines-penalties
Covered-in-the-Garfield Continuum Workshops-you-can-look-this-stuff-up-in-wikopedia
MILLIONS OF HOMEOWNERS ARE DEMANDING THEIR HOMES FREE AND CLEAR
Will you be ready to represent them?
The conspiracy to defraud homeowners will be thrown to its knees, and lenders will be called upon to produce the note or let the property go. This is the best opportunity lawyers have ever had to earn higher fees, do justice for their clients and improve the image and reputation of our profession.
If you know anything about mortgage backed securities, the answer is clear. Precedent setting orders/opinions in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and other states have already decided in favor of the homeowners – with more following every day.
Welcome to the emergence of mortgages interwoven the new world of derivatives, asset backed securities, credit market vehicles, ratings and appraisal practices, issuance of negotiable instruments, and administrative rules and regulations on the state and federal level.
Are your legal skills up to the challenge? Or are you malpracticing, unaware of this legal new world order called securitization?
If your practice has anything to do with bankruptcies, foreclosure, or real estate, be prepared to be sued yourself for not knowing the myriad state and federal laws that protect homeowners from predatory lenders. Further, there is now a proven legal strategy for not only protecting homeowners, but establishing legally that they already own their homes free and clear of all mortgage encumbrances.
WORKSHOPS COMING UP TO 9.5 CLE CREDITS(FL), 8.0 for CA Lawyers attending the upcoming Florida Workshops
• List of Approved Jurisdictions
SNEAK PREVIEW OF WORKBOOK AND SEMINAR TOPICS: introduction-to-attorney-workbook
A California attorney can claim California MCLE credit for education activities attended/taken outside California, provided that:
the attorney is outside California when attending/taking the activity;
the activity is the type of activity that can be approved for California MCLE credit;
the activity is approved by an Approved Jurisdiction.
If the criteria above are met, neither the provider nor the member needs to submit the activity to California for approval. California (and other states) credit can be claimed by the attorney, based on the fact an approved jurisdiction approved the activity.
Florida is an approved jurisdiction
What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars
Neil F. Garfield, M.B.A., J.D., 63, is the winner of dozens of academic awards, a popular speaker, and author of technical treatises on law and economics. He has come out of retirement with a bang and financial institutions should take note. He knows them from the inside out, who the deciders are, and how they arrived at a catastrophic scheme to defraud people, agencies, institutions and governments all over the world.
For more information on Neil Garfield visit his website at
http://livinglies.wordpress.com
FLORIDA LENDING LAWS: florida-usury
florida-recording-requirements
EXCELLENT ALABAMA CASE ANALYZING SEQUENCE OF INDORSEMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS
fordham-and-creighton-law-reviews-on-securitization-and-holders-in-due-course
gator-recording-duty-and-the-effect-on-agents-of-securitization
california-statutes-foreclosure
necessary-and-indispensable-parties
ten-reality-questions-answers-sb_1137_faq_rev_3
annoted-example-of-asignment-and-assumption-agreement
standard-and-poor_s-classification-of-home-loans-and-predatory-rating
florida-regulator-resigns-after-letting-bank-robbers-and-other-felons-operate-as-mortgage-brokers
A Case that Could Have been Won and Probably Still can be overturned:
deutsche-bank-national-trust-queens-case
From the Scriptures: Respect and Ownership
CONFLICT OF LAWS:
Most states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code without making any revisions. The UCC is an outgrowth of the Uniform Code arising from the Hague conventions. Thus the laws concerning indorsement, transfer, accommodation and assignment date back hundreds of years from common law from over 30 countries. Variance in application of these laws carries with it the probability of undermining the confidence that people will have in knowing that contractual obligations will be enforced and that they are protected by legal conventions that are accepted all over the world. In the context of the mortgage meltdown, the ONLY defensive positions that can be taken by those who would enforce securitized notes and mortgages, given the predatory practices employed and the failure to disclose the inflated pricing and valuation on both sides of the transaction — the investor who put up the money for the loan, and the borrower who signed the papers — is to run contrary to established law. An indorsement in blank generally means nothing without more. It does not convert the instrument to a bearer instrument. An accommodation indorsement fails to provide “cover” which is necessary for one to claim being a holder in due course. The following is an old treatise comparing laws from various jurisdictions. The inescapable conclusions are that the laws that were taught in law schools 100 years ago, 50 years ago and even 25 years ago are all the same. The only party capable of claiming the status of holder in due course is the investor who purchased certificates that gave him/her/it a share of a pool of assets which consisted of, in its purest form, a pool of notes and mortgages that were corrupted by the promise (unknown to the borrower or the investor) to apply payments to parties OTHER THAN the holder in due course. This has the obvious effect of separating the stream of revenue from the original obligor (and co-obligors acquired along the way) from the security instrument (the mortgage) which si a recorded document, as should be any assignment thereof. The parties holding the mortgage and the parties to whom the revenue stream is pledged are different, diverse, and in most cases unknown as they are dependent upon conditions subsequent that were undisclosed to either the borrower or the investor (overcollateralization of the asset backed securities, cross guarantees between tranches, insurance against loss, credit default swaps etc.). Hence the obligation was converted from a secured credit transaction to an unsecured unliquidated contingent contract obligation, subject to affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including the quieting of title, from the borrower.
Conflict of Laws as to Bills and Notes
The comments sections on this site are almost as laughable as Facebook groups for being full of false experts and desperate homeowners being victimized by their false expertise.
What do attorney’s do when the note is not endorsed and the courts are ruling against the use of the UCC in foreclosure defense? This is what has been happening in California.
Please contact Lendinglies at info@lendinglies.com so we can assist you.
Fidelity National Insurance Group attorneys
Committed fraud against our Homestead.
Defending unlawful detainers by fraud conveyance and conversion.
During hearing at local board the State of FL is not with standing for any transactions regarding homesteads. Marketable titLe is fraud when homestead owner is living at location. There is no transfer recoRd.
It is deliberate ignorance by Adam Shosnan and Jollinger against my homestead. This homestead has been in my family since 1862.
We have lived here generation after generation. After providing court order regarding our ownership. It was ignored by Fidelity attorneys and a recommendation has been made by a magstrate to quiet title some our homestead for a public use without any purchase payment to homestead owner.
What should I do? I reported to congressman Dunn office and Florida Senator Gainer.
This appears to be a pattern since we are the U.S.Supreme court for the same activity on homestead by some other person. No one locally is assisting us to prevent this fraud and theft of our homestead property. If you have a homestead you now in jeapardy of losing your property if we don’t stop Fidelity. Any comments or help is appreciated.
WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.
The originating credit union in my case sued me in foreclosure in New Jersey but had long ago sold my loan, presumably into a pool for subsequent securitization. Never during the litigation did the credit union claim to own the loan (even in the complaint), relying instead on a claim to be the holder of the note. The bank-loving Trial Court and Appellate Division regrettably both saw nothing wrong with this approach, giving the mere servicer all the cover it needed eventually to take my home away from me and conduct a judicial sale, including never forcing the mere servicer to directly assert that it was the owner of the loan. I am now within a very short window of time during late December 2016 within which I may petition the NJ Supreme Court for Certification of the Appellate Division’s adverse decision in my case. The gravamen of the accusation of error by the Appellate Division would be the absence of the necessary claim of ownership by the servicing credit union in any of the required Notice of Intent to Foreclose, the formal Foreclosure Complaint, or the required Notice of Intent to Apply for Final Judgment. Do I have a prayer of getting the NJ Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Division in my case or should I not bother to file the Petition for Certification? The courts in New Jersey have never given a foreclosure plaintiff the benefit of a legal presumption of loan ownership that the foreclosure plaintiff intentionally never claimed, but my case seems to have turned that precept on its head. Absolutely ridiculous that this should happen, but the banks always seem to get whatever it is that they expend lobbying dollars on.
Hi. Re: need for NJ attorney for foreclosure defense.
Email me at Crimsonsage@att.net with subject line of ‘NJ foreclosure defense attorney’.
I can put you in touch with a person who will know.
Disclaimer: I receive no fees
Okay I need a Lawyer in NJ or PA that has their NJ license to help me with my foreclosure, very unusual case… Not interested in doing a loan modification so if that is where you are coming please don’t waste my time… Help, get a hold of me as soon as possible, please…
Re: Jeff Barnes attorney out of Boca Raton. A REAL NIGHTMARE.
Please People do your research very very carefully if you are thinking about hiring this guy. He took our families valuable land as a future payment to defend us and then at the last minute he bailed out on us leaving us totally stranded. We had already paid him a fortune to defend us but he lost at every turn. We demanded our families property back and he went absolutely crazy. I had never had that kind of verbal attack against me and my family before, it was terrifying.
I thought he had lost his mind. He assured me that his friends at the attorney generals office would prosecute me and my family for a Varity of reasons, he told me he would contact our Bankruptcy judge and claim that we were committing bankruptcy fraud. Then he made some really bad comments about my child and that ticked me off really bad. We are elderly and never done anything wrong in our lives so this was scary to my wife and I. But we are not going to let him get away with this and neither should you if he attacked you too.. We have since heard from others who have had the same attack.
If you are suffering because of the way you were treated by Jeff Barnes please call me at 352 274 8467 and join our complaint to the Florida bar. I want to show the bar that this is not an isolated incident. We want him disbarred and we want our property back.
Hello, I would like help with finding a knowledgeable Bankruptcy Atty that will help force a good modification thru the BK court here in the Bay Area. One that understands how to use leverage in order to get the result I need. I have a date set of 4/18/16. I’ve been fighting them off since 2009 in various ways. I’m currently being reviewed for a modification, Chase has offered trial payments that are unaffordable and yes they are dual- tracking as usual.
WHERE ARE THE ATTORNEYS?? STEP FORWARD!!
ONE SINGLE PRO SE FIGHTING HARD FOR ALL HOMEOWNER-BORROWER-CREDITORS UP IN THE NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE AND HOME123 CORPORATION BANKRUPTCY. THAT LIQUIDATING TRUST STILL HAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN IT!
HOW ABOUT IT ATTORNEYS—READY TO ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES??
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148801668/ATTORNEYS-WHO-WILL-FIGHT-FOR-US-NEEDED-SOLE-PRO-SE-SEEKS-FORMATION-OF-BORROWERS-COMMITTEE-IN-THE-NEW-CENTURY-BANKRUPTCY-IN-DELAWARE-ORIGINALLY-FILED
Fantastic post but I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on
this topic? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Thanks!
I really like what you guys are usually up
too. This kind of clever work and reporting! Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve included you guys to my blogroll.
I am fighting with my own attorney who my realtor recommended to me after many hours researching my loan I began to see so many problems nobody knows who owns the note I had 3 mortgages on my home and the house was under water I reached out to the mortgage company for help they told me to negotiate with the 2nd and 3rd lenders which I did foolishly!!! I found out they were trying to push me to short sale the home I paid the 2nd lender 6,000.00 under Fannie Mae allowance when I owed over 300K and the 3rd lender I owed 30K and they took 5K> I paid them before the closing which was a mistake then the mortgage company could not tell me who hold the note on my home I started researching pulled out my original closing papers and the supposed mortgage company gave me a fruadulent loan and I have the original check with robo signers signatures. I called the mortgage company on my own and he was so nice until I got smart and said who owns the note on my home. Basically they were charging me top dollar for my loan becuase they were now the only lein holder so basically they knocked out 2 and 3 to get all there money. I am looking for help on this. I called off the deal to sell my home because I was being screwed over!!! The attorneys are registered on the Barr Association of New York out of the same office and this attorney is refusing to send the buyers check back after several requests. I don’t understand how they were able to obtain a pay off letter with out my authorization its a big mess!!!
Anyone have someone for me to call I called the Attorney General and filed a complaint and the FDIC! The buyers attorney is basically saying I have enough funds to sell my home they even are making me pay the buyers closing costs I am at a loss here I am not giving them my house they have now served with some Pendency papers that I am like in awe …
MAHER SOLIMAN is a FRAUD. He is NOT an EXPERT WITNESS. Here is PROOF:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85856537/Maher-Soliman-is-a-Fraud
@goi
pls email me carra2009@gmail.com
LL readers: MAHER SOLIMAN is a FRAUD. He is a ‘self imposed’ expert witness, whose credentials cannot be verified, his arguments were ‘tossed out’ in my case and he did NOT SHOW UP for meetings, phone conferences and did NOT SUPPLY WRITTEN testimony after I PAID HIM for it…. If you have a location for him let me know, my attorneys want to serve him the summons…..
Link to file a complaint with Calif Attorney General: http://oag.ca.gov/contact
My case is racketeering, cash out, no closing documents. My question, I filed a Chapter 13 in Federal Court back in 2005. Just when the mortgage fraud started to come to light.
Q: Can I go back to the Federal Court and ask them to reopen my case? My homestead is still vacant. The mortgage companies are Argent, Amerquest, AMC Mortgage, Deutsche Bank in a pooling of see unities.
Note: To this day I still do not have my closing documents or how Argent placed a $49,000.00 dollar lien on my homestead.
I am still in Court but I have made mistakes and the lawyers know that. Cause#20070290
Argent was my mortgage company that wrongfully cashed out $49,000.00 dollars against home improvements on my homestead property 405 N Trinity, Cleburne TX 76031. I have searched the county records, and no one can find a home improvement permit. Keep in mind no work was ever done to my home stead. Also Argent is now out of business. And no one is living in my home, but someone is gutting / removing my cabinets, floors, and fixtures. What can I file in Federal Court to make the current first lien hold to produce the cash out documents showing who what when and how they are able to have a valid claim?
My case is racketeering, cash out, no closing documents. I filed chapter 13 in Federal Court in 2005. Just when the mortgage fraud started to come to the light. The chapter is dismissed.
Q. Can I go back to the Federal Court and ask them to reopen my case while my home is still vacant? The mortgage Companies are Argent, and mortgage Deutsche Bank in a pooling of securities. Note; to this day I still do not have my closing documents or how Argent placed a lien on my homestead.
I was in court but now I am in Appeal Court. I have made mistakes and the lawyers know that cause #20070290 but the Civil Court still doesn’t get it. Please notice Jessie R. Fantroy was President Lyndon B. Johnson, personal cook during the Civil Rights and Presidency. 405 N. Trinity is her original HOMESTEAD, and now they are gutting it. For verification use this link. http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local/x488992292/-Such-a-wonderful-person?keyword=leadpicturestory
I lost the summary judgment and keep fighting until the constable removed me on January 09, 2009. My two year period is about up and the Nation realize the massive mortgage fraud can anyone help me
Rickey; email FCNIR@aol.com
Foreclosure Defense and Tax Defense Attorneys who “get it.” World-wide practice based in Phoenix and San Diego. The MacPherson Group, P.C. http://www.BEAT-IRS.com / mac@beatirs.com / nathan@beatirs.com / (623) 209-2003 / (858) 617-9633 / 1 (800) BEAT-IRS / Licensed in Arizona, California, Oklahoma, England and Wales. Call or e-mail for free books and brochures and our “Foreclosure Defense” and “Novel Tax Arguments” memos. Know your rights!
I am looking for an attorney in San Diego County who works in the area of foreclosure defense. Please email me if you know of someone good.
mikegp44@cox.net
CR
try Joe Bodnar in Philadelphia. He is licensed to practice law in PA and has done work in this area of law for a number of years.
office 302-449-4572
Knowledgeable attorney needed in Pocono’s (PA). MERS mortgage (have not done audit yet). Sheriff sale – May 26th. Need representation. Original mortgage from Decision One. Sold to Fairbanks. Select Portfolio has been servicing the loan for 7 or 8 years. Now Decision One comes back into picture to foreclose? I smell a rat! I am a 9-11 survivor and really need some help! Thanks!
The Law Office of William Nolen & Associates, PLLC is a full-service Law Firm handling Real Estate and Foreclosure Defense in North Texas and surrounding areas!
CALL US TODAY AND WE’LL GET YOUR CASE HANDLED IMMEDIATELY!!!!
http://www.williamnolenlaw.com
817-939-8335
HELP…. In Texas
In need of an honest Texas attorney who “gets it” in the Austin/San Antonio, Comal County area to fight foreclosure with Nationstar & MERS.
PLEASE.
@ disableddad
Try calling Chris Gardas
Phone: (415) 407-4918
chrisgardas@comcast.net
I need an attorney in NorCal(Solano Co.)I have a 30 day reprieve on the sale date of my home of 25 yrs. I am disabled and used refi $ in 2007 to make my home disabled freindly. But I was scammed.
Problem is not ability to pay mortgage. Problem is when the servicing changed in Nov 2009, so did the terms of the l;oan. So does someone out there want a drop in the hat case where Letter of Rescission has been sent and have 10 days left for lender answer. 30 days from today ,13th Dec next scheduled sale date. TILA, RESPA violations, FRAUD- change of loan terms Have both TILA’s documents generated 8 -9 days late, Blank Right to Rescind, Failure to ever send closing documents to borrower,
Need NorCal attorney with some fight in him or herASAP
Northern California_San Francisco Bay Area
Chris Gardas
Attorney At Law
530 43rd Street
Richmond, CA 94805
Phone: (415) 407-4918 fax: (510) 778-1273
chrisgardas@comcast.net
http://www.projo.com/economy/Fighting_Foreclosure_10-24-10_7FIGCK5_v36.503440.html#
Call George E.Babcock Esquire at 401-274-1905 for
Information on properties in RI & MA & CT.
Do you have a name and phone number of law firm that can handle modification lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Wachovia in the Orange County California area?
Kona Tina
The chain of your mortgage is as under please:-
Indy Mac Bank FSB (originator, seller, sponsor) sold it to Indy Mac MBS Inc( Depositor) for cash. The Depositor sold this to the Security Underwriter Lehman Brothers for Cash. Lehman Brother sold it to Investors through the Dealers/Agents for cash. The true sale is from the Depositor to the Security underwriter and not to the Trust. Indy Mac Bank FSB retained the servicing and One West Bank bought only Servicing rights from the Indy Mac Federal Bank FSB, which was created as a “BRIDGE” bank (FDIC Certificate # 58912) through the FDIC on 03/19/2009. Indy Mac Bank FSB which was the original nominal lender was demised and ceased to exist on 07/11/2008 (FDIC Certificate # 29730 and OTS order # 24-2008 both dated 07/11/2008)
One West was created as per FDIC certificate # 58978. Your mortgage is owned by the some investors and not the One West Bank FSB, which is just a servicer. This is a big game and our Government knows this. Every thing was pre- planned. Please challenge every thing and assume nothing.
I am not an attorney and this should not be taken as advice, and you can consult some legal expert on this.
Thanks and Be Safe
I am being foreclosed upon by Onewest Bank. My original lender was Indymac.
In Feb 2010, the FDIC assigned my mortgage and promissory note to Onewest so that Onewest could begin foreclosure. I emailed the FDIC and asked them, ” if they SOLD all the assets of Indymac to Onewest in 2009, how they had any interest in my loan to be able to assign it in Feb 2010″. A lady at the FDIC called me and said “oh no, we were only doing that assignment to show that we DIDN’T have an interest in the mortgage”. I cried BULLSHIT. I worked in escrow field for 15 years. Assignments are not used this way.
Now I understand this: My mortgage is labeled a “toxic asset”. Toxic asset = worthless stock. Most likely, AIG or some other insurance company already paid off the pool that held the worthless stock. Under TARP, lenders are prohibited from owning toxic assets. So my mortgage, after being originated by Indymac and sold into a REMIC as worthless stock, has been sitting in limboland (MERS) while the servicer was continuing to collect my mortgage payments (until recently) and Indymac went bankrupt. (all a preplanned ponzi game?) But, before Onewest can foreclose and steal my house, they must gain title to the mortgage to foreclose, thus the “assignment” from FDIC to Onewest. Challenge all assignments. Who actually held the title to the promissory note and mortgage prior to the assignment? If it was a lender, and lenders are not allowed to hold toxic assets, then they were/are in violation of TARP. They purposefully avoid claiming ownership after the original lender goes BK, in order to attempt to comply with the laws. Yet, when they want to foreclose and gain title to your home, questionable assignments are recorded to put the the servicer in a position to be able to foreclose. These assignments are not legal.
Carlos:
Blood in the water always attracts sharks.
It is only the rich who are participating in “strategic defaults,” ie.: they have enough money to pay off their loans but are choosing not to, who will fight the banks. I was told that you must file a law suit against the lien holder if you have a MERS loan. That means hiring a lawyer. I would end up paying some lawyer more money than what I owe on the loan in order to fight to keep my house.
The rich get richer (who is buying all of these houses in default?…in my county, rich people looking for rental property), the poor get poorer. Welcome to the USA. Nothing new here. The country was founded on the economic backs of slaves. Big business has been run that way ever since. Why do you think every major company in the US operates out of China now?
I have come to terms with this. They are stealing my house, there is nothing I can do about it.
Get out how ever you can without doing any more damage to your credit report.
Move on.
It is the only way to save your sanity in an insane environment!
Please if anyone knows for an honest attorney who can help me in a foreclousure in California Ventura County. just yestarday I met with an attorney he wants to charge thousands of dollars and 1/3 of the property value if he wins, it was very sad to hear that especially for folks like me that cannot afford that. e-mail me if you know of someone who really if for the people.
Thank You.
I need a foreclosure attorney who can help me with a mortgage backed securities loan with WF in southern california, san gabriel valley
If you look on your deed of trust (if you did not keep the copy you received when you closed on your house the county clerk should have one on file; I could look at mine using their computer for free) you might be able to tell if MERS has your loan.
My deed clearly states:
“TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY
The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS. This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (I) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the NOTE. For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following described property…”
Under the definitions heading:
“A556104
CALIFORNIA-Single family-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT WITH MERS Form 3005 1/01″…
(E) “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P. O. Box 2026, Flint MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.”
Got a kick out of Freddie Mac today. I emailed them, asking if they would tell me who the investor of my loan with OneWest who says it’s Freddie Mac that is my investor really is. They said
“Neener, Neener, Neener, we don’t have to tell you because we’re not subect to the FOIA”…..
Hah, that’s because they are a private corporation scamming billions from the Feds while the Feds let them just wipe off Billions in bad debt from their balance sheet. Wish I could do that!
Well, actually they were politely terse saying
“Thank you for your inquiry to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s (“FREEDIE MAC”) Investor Department requesting under the Freedom of Information Act the name of the securitization or other entity that your mortgage was sold. Unfortunately Freddie Mac is not subject to the FOIA.”
No, they just scam Billions from the Government and watch you pay for it in Higher Tax Bills, Unemployment, & Foreclosures.
Transparent? Apparently not with Freddie Mac.
Let’s all thank Theressa Nelson, Legal Administrator Coordinator at Freddie Mac.. She writes a nice letter.
Hope she can sleep at night.
All I am here to say is Maher I really believe in you and more people should open their ears and really listen to what you are saying. 🙂 Thank you for all that you do for struggling homeowners!
Any Attorneys in Indianapolis
Why would you have your clients sign the QCD and give their property to someone that isn’t entitled to it?
Have them QCD it to me! or their church, or to Obama’s dog.
B of A doesn’t have legal right to the house! B of A has clouded the title.
How can the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust be Bifurcated and the Deed of Trust be enforced?
Legally your Promissory Note and Deed of Trust were supposed to stay together as one obligation—the Note said the would pay, the Deed of Trust secured that promise to pay.
if you want to fatten the fat cat pockets even more give them a QCD
If you want to help your clients, fight.
There is an expert witness that testifies for many homeowners, he says it is an accounting issue and less likely to be discovered using case law if you fight. The best case law would be that used to put the CEOS of Enron,Tyco and World Com (Bernard Evers) behind bars. Securitization is a one way street, it cannot be reversed. The borrower is a cosignor for the lenders obligation to the trust…All those mortgage loan were sold (bonefied sale) w/in 90 of the loan closing. The law states, in order to conduct a bonefied sale, you must evidence that sale by assignment and endorsement of the note. The two elements of law, for a lawful assignment are A-verifiable consideration, B-lawful intent.
When a servicing lender forecloses, the trustee/sheriff sale is showing the lender purchasing back the home as a transferee and a beneficiary. What is wrong with this? The transferee and the beneficiary are one and the same and set the bid price before they repurchase the home.
Dual Consideration: When you get your loan the lender “wires” money to escrow/title to complete the loan origination. Now in foreclosure sales, the lender acts as if it’s wiring money in order to purchase the home in a foreclosure. So they pay twice for it? The purchase price, which is typically the full value of the loan, is alleged to have been set whereupon no bidders will bid and where beneficiary is the winning bid. That beneficiary is alleged to be MERS.
In legal terms, the beneficiary that comes to court has no face and the face of the beneficiary is unknown, it cannot be determined. FAS140 is a GAAP accounting procedure defined by FASB and states among other things the definition of a controlling interest in assets sold. What does this all mean?
The lender has lost the beneficial interest when it sold the loan in the Pool Trust and the lender does not own the asset/reo. The lender can only purchase back the reo, it cannot never buy back the promissory note.
What does this all mean?
If the parties are conducting foreclosures in violation of generally accepted accounting principals, they lose nearly 10 yrs of tax incentives provided by the Pool Trust structure and where these clandestine opaque and secretive dealings benefit the lender, that lender lost it’s control and rights to the loan. therefor every foreclosure is conducted by parties having some distant interest in those assets. And that interest is recourse (guarantees) for which they interfer with a consumers rights. solely for gain.
Before you quit claim back that house, research the UCC law. B of A doesn’t have legal claim to the house if they don’t have the Promissory note and they have sold that note on Wall Street to some Chinese person (in a Pool Trust) for 8 times the value of the Note. How can you have any rights to something you already sold?
Ask the judge to make B of A prove they have the Promissory Note iif with a copy then a duly endorsed copy, not a BLANK endorsed copy, and that copy better coincide with the assignment on the deed of trust, or make B of A give your borrower a clear title.
The special prosecutor investigating Lehman Brothers just came out with a report that says that very fact. What you don’t own, you have no control over. Check it out.
Come on guy, don’t just roll over and give it up.
We filed Chapter 7 on behalf of a client that had an investment property that was underwater and the property was discharged in the bankruptcy. Bank of America has been processing the deed in lieu for months with no progress. They have not yet field foreclosure, so I cannot motion for a consent foreclosure. Since the property was discharged, is there any liability to me or my client if I have them just sign a quit claim deed, record it, and mail it to Bank of america?
Andrew
How can you tender or cure a moving target? The lender is a trust, depositor, trustee, agent, successor , obligor for a separate debt to an affiliated obligee and transferee by assignment , implied or express to the beneficiary represented by an agent for a trustee appointed by the nominal interest.
I met with with a group of third grade students who tried to explain the lenders actions. They did a great job actually, but I am still lost.
You cannot produce revenue and report the earnings without recognizing the assignment of the loan or collateral for an asset backed investment.
The late assignment is their means to cover themselves as a “participating lender” for unlawful quarterly trades.
This was done in and out of the trust to hide the leverage from regulators and the rating agencies.
I said it before and will say it again. When AIG took their bonuses they sent a big finger to the wall street burgers who duped both them and the rating agencies
Seems to me we are going to see more of the grand jury and maybe a prep walk for a lot of executive brass representing the lenders of America
m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
“A little voice inside my head said don’t look back….you can never look back.”
Oh Wise One! In the NY Fed disclosure of the TARP payments, they show various certificates that were tendered for cash. In Maiden Lane I, it shows the CDS’s for 11 certificates from the WFHET_05-2, mostly M8 but also an M9 and M7 certificate. Some of the values show a positive amount (8,200,000, i.e) and some show negative balances (-10,000,000 i.e.). This was a Bear-Stearns counterparty deal. What are these values representative of? The amount of the loss on the swap? Amounts vary among the M8’s. They show 9 M8’s, 1 M7, one M9. Thanks.
M. Soloman…
So what does this mean in plain english? My loan was allegedly sold by Chase to a Lehman MBS.
——————————————————————-
The trusts for the most part never existed. It was a tax free and tax deferred method for attracting investors and raising capital designed by the investment bankers, major banks and top players as in mortgage bankers.
You think I am guessing here?
To borrowers it is an breech materially and adversely affecting the interests of the security holders. Now they may finally be dragged into this picture for damages to a duped home owner.
The sale of assets to the trust and claims of the loan being assigned to a trust was deceptive and served multi purposes.
(1) To raise insane amounts of new capital beyonds the banks reach.
(2) Allowed homeowners to cover the bill for their cost of funds
By increasing their capital base they opened up their lending limit ceiling for making money in other legitimate sectors of the economy .To accomplish the above they got homeowners to carry the entire expense with a make payments on time or lose your home mandate .
It was nothing more than a major bank paying a monthly dividend through a business units capitalized with domestic mortgages. FDIC and OTS cannot figure it out! Okay….$36million later?
Are you kidding me?Investors were lured into the deal with tax free offshore and domestic investments appearing safe and sound with a false sense of protection.
Homeowners were lured into the deal with insane underwriting and nonsense no income qualifying. These stated income products were really funding at 125% of the properties real value.
Imagine owning a bank and instead of attracting traditional certificate of deposits you can raise mega billions from dumb sub-prime homeowners.
These loans (a lot) were lured away from Fannie and Freddie using 100% advances and brainless appraisals.
Why did the FDIC let this happen. Did the California legislature not hear the warnings of attorneys and web site such as this.
How can an FDIC bank be allowed to fund mortgages intended for sale and not receive anything as a payoff as was done under derecognition? Why has the state not come to the consumers rescue while allowing this game to be played at the county recorders office.
This means there was no sale to a trust in many cases and your lender and servicer interfered with your rights to tender back anything in order to save your home.
Its developing into a cataclysmic embarrassment to US financial institution’s, is a material breach of the loan documents you signed and understanding and something way beyond continental and Charles Ketting.
Forget what I have been telling you. You have a 2000 page report that cost $36million they could have obtained for free by visiting this site.
m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
M. Soloman… so what does this mean in plain english? My loan was allegedly sold by Chase to a Lehman MBS.
It’s official and just broke on the news wire! You heard it here first on LL…FAS 140 and Repo agreements. Read the posts . . .
———————————————————————-
PRESS RELEASE
Mortgages originated and sold to investment trusts used aggressive accounting to commit fraud
By M.Soliman
For Immediate Release, Los Angeles, Calif. – – Mortgage holders now face a new wave of problems for borrower loans sold into an indentured trust. An ordinary repurchase agreement is a common form of short-term financing and has no impact on the balance sheet. A company sells a bond or other, usually liquid, asset to a lender at market value for cash, and then repurchases the asset a few days later.
Under a Repo [105] transactions usually occurred just before the end of a quarter so that, for a few days before the end of the quarter, the company’s net leverage ratio, a number that is used by ratings agencies, appeared to be lower than it actually was. A few days after the quarter ended, Investment Banks would repurchase the assets and the net leverage ratio would go back up.
Posted by AccountingWEB in Firm News,Watchdog on 03/15/2010, the Repo 105 agreements differed from ordinary repurchase agreements because investment firms valued the assets pledged in the repurchase agreement at 105 percent of the cash received. , less than their market value.
Maher Soliman, a Los Angeles based analyst said “Look, the assets were valued in excess of the cash received, Investment Banks claimed that FAS 140 – Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities –allowed it to book the transactions as sales. Its called derecognition.”
Investment Banks like Investment Banks began using the Repo 105 agreements in 2001. In 2008, as the firm was collapsing, Investment Banks used Repo 105 transactions to move $50 billion of assets from its balance sheet.
The court examiner report detailed the steps Investment Banks took when no American law firm would give its blessing to the Repo 105 transactions. Investment Banks turned to British law firm Linklaters LLP, which gave Investment Banks a letter stating that the transaction could be recorded as a sale under British law. The 2006 version of the letter, used by Valukas, stated, “This opinion is limited to English law as applied by the English courts and is given on the basis that it will be governed by and construed in accordance with English law.”
All of Investment Banks’s Repo 105 transactions were then conducted by the London arm of the firm. According to The New York Times, the court examiner’s report stated that Investment Banks would transfer the Repo 105 assets to London. European lenders were among the principle counterparties, including Barclays of Britain, UBS of Switzerland, KBC Bank of Belgium, and Mizuho Bank and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group of Japan.
Claims of negligence and malpractice against Ernst & Young could be made, the report stated, in connection with its audits of Investment Banks and a failure to act upon claims from a whistleblower that Investment Banks’s accounting for a trade known as “Repo 105” was misleading, The Wall Street Journal reported.
A spokesman for Ernst & Young said the firm reviewed the accounting for the Investment Banks’s Repo 105 deals “on a number of occasions,” according to The Wall Street Journal. “Our view was, and continues to be, that Investment Banks’s accounting policy for these repo transactions complied with generally accepted accounting principles. The examiner has not concluded otherwise.”
Ernst & Young was informed about the potential impact of the Repo 105 transactions in an interview on June 12, 2008, with Matthew Lee, a former senior vice president at Investment Banks, according to the Wall Street Journal. Lee had sent a letter to senior management in May warning about “tens of billions of dollars of unsubstantiated balances, which may or may not be ‘bad’ or non-performing assets or real liabilities.” In the letter, Lee also expressed concern about Investment Banks’s accounting systems and personnel, and “potential misstatements of material facts.”
Following receipt of the letter, Investment Banks’s board of directors asked Ernst & Young to interview Lee. During the interview, Lee raised the issue of the Repo 105 maneuver, saying that Investment Banks was moving as much as $50 billion off its balance sheet using the transaction. Ernst & Young did not report back to the board of directors before Investment Banks collapsed three months later. Lee discussed the interview with the court examiner.
Valukas, who is a former federal prosecutor and an attorney in private practice with Jenner & Block LLP, said there were other factors besides the Repo 105 accounting which contributed to Investment Banks’s failure. These included the financial decline, the risk-taking culture of investment banking, and the failure on the part of government agencies to anticipate and mitigate the situation.
Goldman Sachs, Barclays Capital, and other banks said they did not use repos to hide liabilities on their balance sheets,The New York Times reported.
The court examiner spent 14 months preparing the report, which cost the government $35 million.
The trustee will promptly notify the relevant seller, servicer on behalf of the seller or the servicer as a beneficiary of any breach of any representation or warranty made by it in respect of a mortgage loan it sold.
Soliman, a witness who testifies in these matters has been a staunch advocate against the sale of assets to the trust and claims securitization was a that breech materially and adversely affects the interests of the security holders in the mortgage loan.
The master servicer will make cash advances with respect to delinquent payments of principal and interest on the mortgage loans to the extent the master servicer reasonably believes that the cash advances can be repaid from future payments on the mortgage loans. These cash advances are only intended to maintain a regular flow of scheduled interest and principal payments on the certificates and are not intended to guarantee or insure against losses.
The special purpose entity and its shareholders are the depositor and will purchase the mortgage loans in the mortgage pool from the contributing source i.e. Seller’s Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and one or more other affiliated with Countrywide Financial Corporation. (each of which is referred to in this prospectus supplement as a “Seller” and together they are referred to as the sellers) pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement among the sellers, master servicer, the depositor and The Bank of New York, as trustee, and will cause the mortgage loans to be assigned to the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the certificates.
According to Maher Soliman, “If the loans were not assigned at the time of delivery and closing of the pooling of assets, then the loans remained the property of the seller” . Under FAS 140 these assets were alleged to be sold for the benfit of the shareholders and the seller booked a gain on sale.
Anton R. Valukas, the U.S. bankruptcy court-appointed examiner of failed investment bank Investment Banks Bros., charged with determining the causes of the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, has found that the company used “materially misleading” accounting to make its balance sheet look stronger than it really was.
Valukas concluded that “colorable claims” could be made against some former Investment Banks executives and Ernst & Young, Investment Banks’s auditor, “meaning that enough evidence existed against both parties that could lead to the awarding of damages in a trial,”The New York Times reported. He added that Investment Banks’s directors were not aware of the accounting engineering.
Soliman says this news could result in every borrower now being susceptible to a foreclosure but capable of bringing a receivership to every trust formed over the last 10 years.
According to the examiner’s 2,200 page report, issued late last week, Investment Banks designed a repurchase agreement, Repo 105, which relied on a very aggressive interpretation of an accounting rule, FAS 140, which allowed the company to classify Repo 105 transactions as sales. Under accounting rules, when the assets were treated as sales, Investment Banks could remove them from their balance sheets.
Maher Soliman
Examiner /Expert Witness to Counsel
Robin Hood Tax Utube video
Check out this Robin Hood Tax video
CONTINUED…
THE KEY FOR UNDERSTANDING THIS BOTCHED PUZZLE IS THE INVESTORS ***SETTLED** AND THE HEDGE FUNDS, CAL PERS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS HAVE LONG MOVED ON.
SO THE LENDER CAN FORECLOSE . . . ON ONE CONDITION. THAT IS THEY ***BUY BACK*** REPURCHASE, RE ACQUIRE, RE CAPITALIZE (GET IT) THE CAPITAL USED TO FUND THIS MESS
AND THEY DO REPURCHASE YOUR HOMES LOAN. THEY DO IT IN A FORECLOSURE AND USE A CREDIT BACK?
SURE! BUYER SELLER AND LENDER ARE ALL ONE IN THE SAME.
YOU SEE LEE, I WENT TO SCHOOL AND THAT’S MY ADVANTAGE . I CAN ADD
1+1 = 10….see I got it!
MONEY = LOAN
LOAN = CERTIFICATE (X 10)
1O CERTS x 0.00 = 0.00
BANK WIRES MONEY AND BORROWER GETS A LOAN. BORROWER IN RETURN GIVES BACK A MORTGAGE.
Try this fellow MIT graduates
BANK = $100,000 MORTGAGE
BORROWER = $100,000 CASH
$100,000 MORTGAGE = $ 1 MILLION CERTS
STOCK CERTS = $ 0.00
(Ah oh…we have an institutional moron in the house!)
YOU CANNOT :
1. UNSCRAMBLE THE EGG
2. RECOVER THE TOOTH PASTE
3. RETURN AIR TO A FLATTENED TIRE
4. ASK FOR YESTERDAY BACK
5. RECOVER YOUR YOUTH
6. OVERCOME THE RIP OFF REPORT
(Come on NG I am just trying to help you guys out!)
YOU JUST CANNOT GO BACK!
m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com
213 880-6288
Post Script – – – –
NO CAN DO , NO WAY , CANNOT HAPPEN. LET THEM BUY BACK THE HOME . BASIC ECONOMICS SAY YOU RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR THE HOME LOAN AND OWE THE MONEY.
WELL THE LENDER WAS RELIEVED OF ITS OBLIGATION AND THEY OWE MONEY TO INVESTORS. SO THEY OWE COMPENSATING BALANCES NECESSARY TO FORECLOSE
BUT JUST BECAUSE AN INVESTOR CHARGED THE STOCK OFF A BOOK VALUE DOES NOT EQUATE TO A CREDIT BACK TO THE LENDER SO THEY CAN COME AFTER YOUR HOME.
THERE IS NO CREDIT BACK FOR A LENDER WHO ISSUES A BAD SET OF SECURITIES THAT WERE CHARGED OFF FOREVER.
EVEN IF THEY COULD THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME AMAZING REVERSE ENGINEERING.
SUBSTITUTING A TRUSTEE FOR A NOMINEE WHO ACTS AS A BENEFICIARY WHO THEN ELECTS AN ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS A NOMINEE AND ETC ETC ETC.
THE ARCHITECTS OF THIS FREAK SHOW NEED TO RETIRE AND GO AWAY…ONCE AND FOR ALL!
M.SOLIMAN
EXPERT.WITNESS@LIVE.COM
Arm chair warriors
often fail
while we been poisoned by …
these fairy tales
the lawyers clean up ….
all details
cause daddy (white house)
had to lie
Offer up your best defense
This is the end….
End of the innocence
Don Henley
COMMENT:I have been a witness to 5 family farms being taken from the owners during court cases in which the judge professes justice and constitutional principal.
YOU DON’T MAKE YOUR PAYMENTS YOU LOSE YOUR HOME…WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. LOOK, YOU FINANCE AND BUY A CAR ON CREDIT AND SOMEONE STOLE IT. YOUR INSURED. DO YOU GET A NEW CAR? NO!
THE INSURANCE PAYS OFF THE LOAN GET! NO NEW CAR.
BUT THERES A PROBLEM IN THAT YOUR HOME WAS USED FOR ISSUING STOCK. THE VALUE OF THE STOCK IS ZERO. THE MORTGAGE IS PAID TO ZERO AND THE OBLIGATION TO A STOCK HOLDER IS BEING SETTLED FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.
THATS WALL STREET AND YOUR ON MAIN STREET.
HOWS THAT AFFECT YOU?
IF THE HOME IS PAID TO ZERO WHAT ARE THE STOCK ISSUERS FORECLOSING ON?
YOU CAN HAVE A CAR THAT WAS INSURED PAID DOWN TO ZERO WHERE YOU OWN THE MONEY . BUT IN THIS CASE THE CAR SHOWS UP AGAIN UNHARMED.
WHO OWNS THE CAR? THE INSURER GET IT. BUT THE INSURER IS LONG GONE AND DEAL STRUCTURE FOR INSURING THE AUTO IS SO CONVOLUTED AND COMPLEX IN STRUCTURE THAT SOME SAY THIS EGG CANNOT BE UNSCRAMBLED.
WHO’S ON FIRST? WHO OWNS THE CAR? WHO GETS THE HOME?
I Wonder if this counts[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WeB2klekfo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1] as judicial foreclosure…
What’s up with Kansas?
Are there NO attorney’s in the state who are aware of this defense process? I’ve only talked with ONE who lives 180 miles from us in the middle of the state who “Get’s It” Ted Knopp from the Landmark/Kessler Kansas Supreme court case that was originally filed in Ford County Kansas. Kessler didn’t even have a dog in the fight he just wanted what was due to him by law.
Attention: Attorney’s in ALL other states. If you know of an attorney(s) who is/are working in Kansas (Overland Park, Kansas City Area) PLEASE contact them and urge them to add their name to the list of attorneys for the defense. This is a judicial state. Summary judgment is being granted to the plaintiff as most go in Pro Se and are baited by the judge into agreeing that what the plaintiff has suitable documentation to foreclose and don’t understand the reality of the “system” until their property is gone.
I have been a witness to 5 family farms being taken from the owners during court cases in which the judge professes justice and constitutional principal.
I might remind the readers that the families who’s farms are being stolen out here are growing food and stock using the organic model. Many farms are already gone and MANY more are slated to be taken OUT of the food market. That will leave only the Franken-Food corporate models for public consumption.
Please post this to Kansas attorneys.
Hey we need to address deceptive advertising abuse practices by financial servicers/debt collectors. these pricks will do anything to keep sucking the blood out of us, even if we gave them our houses and told them that we’ll pay for all thier service fees in cash if they would just leave us alone. when my federal case which had stopped a pending trustee’s sale had just got to appeals(before anything had even been recorded) I had 5 asian guys come banging on my door telling me “why haven’t you moved out yet?”, “if you don’t vacate we will file an unlawful detainer”. I said go ahead because the alleged trustee(quality) never filed it’s authorized substitution and they don’t have a license, so if i were you i’d get my $ back. no dice they filed the ud before thier fake tdus was even recorded. in thier covert motion for summary judgement it said they way they found out about the sale was through a foreclosure subscription(fee) service. so I get kicked out knowing it’s all fraud and start working on the fed suit and the “payback” suit and these pricks call harrassing my dad at his work repeatedly insisting that he accept the extra amount left over from the (fake)sale, but the tdus never even had any amount on it for what was owed and what was paid. so my dad tells them stop calling me at work and the lady insists that she be provided with another number to contact him at, then he tells me about it and when she calls I tell here NO we can’t accept that, she says why, I say because your a FRAUD and were suing YOU GENIUS. then she goes on about haw well then she needs my new mailing address so she can serve my proof that she’s deposited the surplus fund with the court and insists I give it to her(stupidly i did). NOW I KEEP GETTING ANNOYING AUTOMATED ADVERTISEMENT PHONE CALLS(ONE OF THEM IS SOME LADY SPEAKING ASIAN TWICE A DAY) AND THE SAME TYPE OF STUPID MORTGAGE REFI ADVERTISEMENT LETTERS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY MISLEADING. And Now I’m thinking to myself I’ve only been at this appartment a couple of months and already these hienas are hunting me down trying to get scraps off of me by selling my contact info for advertising. WHAT A BUNCH OF SCUM!
DyingTruth:
hit me up at dnd1190@gmail.com about QLS
As an aggregator of mortgages I would sell into the various mortgage backed securities trusts. Remember that I wrote a number of these private placements.
I also held them up as I beleived the holder in due course was lost to the transaction. It was impossible to enforce the security piece of a note that was tendered for a disproportionate consideration.
Look, take a note written at $100,000 and a coupon of 8% that is booked accordingly. The note is then sold for cash from one hand to another meaning “same” ownership combination companies. The value here is derecognition for it allows the obligation to now come off balance sheet item.
Now let’s assume the offshore investors are willing to take a 1% cumulative yield that’s rolls every 90 days. Do the math my scholarly research apprentices.
$100,000 x 8% = 8,000 annual yield
$8,000 annual yield / 8% = $800,000
Oh now I get it. An 8:1 ratio of capital investment to the underlying capital assets that are SOLD lets you cash out these notes at a monstrous capitalization allowance.
The ratio of capital generated by securitization allowed FDIC banks to aggressively expand their capital base from domestic and foreign investments with no regard for the emerging “Ponzi ”that was created. In another words – one day you will run out of investors in the world to ever make good on the stock redemptions.
“Make him stop – someone call the rip off report . . . and make him stop.” “Vic, call the Kops!”
Look, maybe this nation so desperately needed SP securitization for expanding the nations banking capacity. Who knows? But that’s a repo commitment that 1000 AIG’s and Countrywide coud never cover.
Someone say “coverage”
MSoliman
Another Scary Theory,
Did it ever really Dawn on anyone that despite providing Lenders/Brokers with more than adequet approval for qualification purposes such as collateral value, that there could be more alterier motives for requiring proof of income verification but claiming that the Loans were qualified without reviewing there financial information other than (well actually combined with) being able to collect more on closing the loan. Think about it if this were poker it would be like the dealer made you show your cards to everyone before you could play, ultimately they would know what you could “afford” to do and what you couldn’t “afford” to do(like HIRE AN ATTORNEY). And with the volatility of ARMs added into the factor, that makes for a ticking timer automatically uping the any or your out when they know that the stakes will be at its highest.
At the encouragement of Jan van Eck.
I bring this again to current readers
attention. There is so much valuable
knowledge on this site, things can be
buried and easily forgotten.
GETTING ATTACHED
When Do Allonges Meet The
Requirements Of The
New York UCC?
snip
Though prevalent, these practices do not
meet the technical requirements of the New
York Uniform Commercial Code to make the
transferee of a promissory note its “holder.” The
potential result: unnecessary and totally avoidable
legal issues if the purchaser or pledgee ever needs
to establish it holds the note. FOR EXAMPLE, IN
A FORECLOSURE, THESE IMPERFECTIONS
MIGHT LET THE BORROWER DEFEAT A
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
by claiming the plaintiff doesn’t validly hold
the loan.
The problem arises from a careful reading of the
technical requirements of the UCC as in effect in
New York (New York UCC).2 New York is one
of only two states that still use the antiquated
1951 version of UCC Article 3.3
Get REALLY EDUCATED here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27545687/Allonges-Under-New-York-UCC-Allonges-Law-Journal-NYLJ-November-2006-93-93-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-uamc-ndex-west-onewest-bank-in
Thanks Usedkarguy he says please don’t remind him(your welcome)
NOTE TO EVERYONE COMPILING RESEARCH(DIRT) ON THE FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENTS TRUSTEE’S DEEDS etc…
ALL OVER THE COUNTRY like 4closurefraud & Deontos. A name Search of the signitories (ie notary secretary VP etc..) should be ran against your state’s real estate agent’s licensing commission. chances are good the agent who signned it will happen to be working with another Corp., LP or LLC already or soon to be in on the take. If anyone in Cali, AZ or any other surrounding are having probs with Quality Loan Service Please Let Me Know I Can Get Information for You to Help You Out.
Food for Thought for Attorneys that are savy on Class Actions – Rescissions Need to be Pursued on a Class Wide basis, because individually, judges make it impossible to obtain the relief sought (especially by bypassing jury demands), but on a Class Wide basis every member of the class who has timely asserted thier right of rescission would be in an inconstestable position to have the issue of tender noticeably satisfied and resolved from all the lenders accepting bailout $$$.
TESTIMONY LINKING WALL STREET AND MAINSTREET
For the benefit of the honorable court and motion filed, consider the testimony provided herein by competent witness:
Timeliness or the statutory term requirements are necessary for making enforceable transfers of title for real property under an alienation of title claim. Alienation and or adverse possession shall have been conducted in an “open” and “notorious” manner. Adverse possession maintains its own judicial requirements to be satisfied under a hostile claim brought against the ignorant or unaware property owner for who the claim is against. And the mere willingness for a government to bail out its ailing banks does not lend the right to non government institutions to enforce a recovery under eminent domain.
Securitization is a process that is exposed in a cataclysmic financial event and illustrated best in a world economic collapse. It is the classic Ponzi with elements of anti trust that requires an investment base in excess of the world’s population under a legal accountant’s vernacular known as “deleted loan”.
It is absurd to believe the lenders recourse is sufficient to honor each defaulted loan repurchase shortfall which is in fact a recourse provision necessary for a lender to perform a foreclosure, if even possible. .
Securitization, in order to realize profit and gain must safeguard and shepherd the right to derecognition. Protection of this accounting practice and questionable scheme is the lifeline to future securitization in mortgage backed assets.
So clandestine and secretive is a lender recovery its arguments rest solely upon a presumption of moral obligation by borrowers.
Lender and interested parties maintain confidence levering a judicial process ignorant of basic accounting practices; this alleged and seen from a “Boyko Plaintiffs” mindset of “that’s just the way it works your honor.
made known .
The obstacles for enabling the courts to comprehend the Wall Street to Main street affirmative defenses none the less embraces the enforcement of long standing legal concepts for adverse possession and alienation of title.
A broad legal judicial requirement is necessary to establish equitable value in arguments the parties bring to the matter before this courts.
The judicial inappropriateness for majority of Plaintiffs claims are not evident to the honorable courts, In further question are counter claims and affirmative defenses “struck” from being heard. The condition of judicial censure regarding affirmative defenses clearly exceeds the local courts jurisdiction…
Plaintiffs cannot avoid the likelihood for contempt where it continues to constrain and circumvent the elements of the law in a matter of foreclosure and demonstrating lawful transfers.
The issues causing imbalance in the court are fell unto a broad diversity which subjects proper judicial remedies to circumventing evidence in support of damaging affirmative defenses.
Therefore I opine before the court and confirm my belief the constraint caused by limited jurisdiction and or prohibition for certain defenses and admissibility of arguments (Wall street v Main street) deemed otherwise to be judicially relative and of substance.
The condition precedent is insufficient for bringing the beneficiaries cause of action whereby most affirmative defenses are deemed lost to the matter whereby such testimony is relative and having bias.
TESTIMONY LINKS WALL STREET AND MAINSTREET
For the benefit of the honorable court and motion filed, consider the testimony provided herein by competent witness:
Timeliness or the statutory term requirements are necessary for making an enforceable transfers of title for real property under an alienation of title claim.
Alienation and or adverse possession shall have been conducted in an “open” and “notorious” manner.Adverse possession maintains its own judicial requirements to be satisfied under a hostile claim brought against the ignorant or unaware property owner for who the claim is against. And the mere willingness for a government to bail out its ailing banks does not lend the right to non governemnt insititions to enforce a recovery under eminat domain.
Securitization is a process that is exposed in a cataclysmic financial event and illustrated best in a world economic collapse. It is the classic Ponzi with elements of anti trust that requires an investment base in excess of the world’s population under a legal accountant’s vernacular known as “deleted loan”.
It is absurd to believe the lenders recourse is sufficient to honor each defaulted loan repurchase shortfall which is in fact a recourse provision necessary for a lender to perform a foreclosure, if even possible. .
Securitization, in order to realize profit and gain must safeguard and shepherd the right to derecognition. Protection of this accounting practice and questionable scheme is the lifeline to future securtization in mortgage backed assets.
So clandestine and secretive is a lender recovery its arguments rest soley upon a presumption of moral obligation by borrowers.
Lender and interested parties maintain confidence levering an judicial process ignorant of basic accounting practices; this alleged and seen from a “Boyko Plainitffs” mindset of “that’s just the way it works your honor.
made knonw .
The obstacles for enabling the courts to comprehend the Wall Street to Main street affirmative defenses none the less embraces the enforcement of long standing legal concepts for adverse possession and alienation of title.
A broad legal judicial requirement is necessary to establish equitable value in arguments the parties bring to the matter before this courts.
The judicial inappropriateness for majority of Plainitiffs claims are not evident to the honorable courts, In further question are counter claims and affirmative defenses “struck” from being heard. The condition of judical censure rregarding affirmative defenses clearly exceeds the local courts jurisidiction..
Plaiitffs cannot avoid the liklihood for contemp where it continues to constrain and curcumvent the elements of the law in a matter of foreclosure and demonstrating lawful transfers.
The issues causing imbalance in teh court are fell unto a broad diversity which subjects proper judicial remedies to circumventing evidence in support of damaging affirmative defenses.
Therfore I opine before the court and confirm my beleif the constraint caused by limited jurisdiction and or prohibition for certain defenses and admissibility of arguments (Wall street v Main street) deemed otherwise to be judically relative and of substance.
The condition precedent is insufficent for bringing the benficiaries cause of action whereby most affirmative defenses are deemed lost to the matter whereby such testimony is relative and having bais.
California Business and Professions Code 6077.5:
(e)An attorney or his or her employee shall not take or threaten to take any
nonjudicial action to effect disposition or disablement of property if (1)
there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as
collateral through an enforceable security interest; (2) there is no present
intention to take possession of the property; or (3) the property is exempt
by law from that disposition or disablement.
Steven K. Kop
Attorney at law
steven.kop@koplawgroup.com
(949) 264-1470 ext 1
(310) 721-8557 cell
http://www.koplawgroup.com
In Florida from weidnerlaw
CALL TO ACTION- GET ME BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
March 13th, 2010
For months now, one of the most sophisticated and aggressive group of Foreclosure Defense attorneys in the state have been collecting evidence of questionable assignments and affidavits of amounts due and owing and affidavits of attorney’s fees. Due to the sensitive nature of this, I’m not disclosing the names of the attorneys, but they are reading this post and if they want to identify themselves they can reply to this post.
Quite simply, as they’ve reviewed hundreds or thousands of affidavits and assignments, and compared the dates and signatures on the documents, they do not appear to be legitimate. In some cases an affiant has allegedly signed dozens of documents in several states all on the same day. In other cases, the signers are allegedly signing documents on days when they have other evidence that the signers could not or should not have been signing on the days the documents are allegedly signed. In almost all the cases, when you compare the alleged signature of the signer with documents which bear the signer’s real signature (like on a mortgage for their own home), the signature on the affidavits and other documents are completely different.
This conduct seriously undermines the judicial system and is totally unacceptable when any party does it….but we have good reason to believe that attorneys affiliated in various ways with the foreclosure mills are actively participating in creating false affidavits and documents. In at least one case, the foreclosure mills “withdrew” affidavits signed by attorneys that were submitted to courts when they were challenged as being fraudulent. When they were sought for deposition, the court granted a protective order preventing the false attorney signers from being deposed….apparently when you commit a fraud on the court and you’re caught, you can withdraw the fraud and you get a free pass.
CALL TO ACTION- GET THE DOCUMENTS!
This cannot be allowed to continue. We all need to work together to collect affidavits and assignments, then post them in one centralized locations so that all who are involved in this fight can compare signatures and dates on these signatures. Depositions are scheduled for several of the false signers and the more examples of affidavits and assignments we have the better. Pro se folks, activists and attorneys, please take some time and email or fax all the affidavits and assignments you can to me. My email is weidnerlaw @ yahoo . com, my fax is 727/213-6235. If affidavits are posted elsewhere, please send me links I will post the links.
We are particularly interested in affidavits of attorney time at this stage because depositions of attorneys who purportedly signed these affidavits are currently set. The foreclosure mills are fighting like hell to not have these depositions taken.
What are they afraid of? All the signer has to say is, “Yes, I signed that affidavit.” Problem is outside evidence suggests that the affidavit signer could not have actually signed the affidavit and in many cases, the signatures are wildly different. Nailing the mills on this will have major implications. I’m willing to bet that in many cases, the mills don’t bother to have affidavits of attorney’s time properly prepared, witnessed and notarized. I’m willing to bet they just gloss over these “minor” details and have created some perfunctory process where affidavits are just blown through and signed by any old person…and not the person’s name who is on the signature line….that’s fraud.
If we all do our job and work together here, we will have a database of publicly accessible affidavits that can be compared, used in depositions and shared with the courts…..please help, email or fax affidavits and assignments to
weidnerlaw @ yahoo . com
In Florida
CALL TO ACTION- GET ME BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
March 13th, 2010
For months now, one of the most sophisticated and aggressive group of Foreclosure Defense attorneys in the state have been collecting evidence of questionable assignments and affidavits of amounts due and owing and affidavits of attorney’s fees. Due to the sensitive nature of this, I’m not disclosing the names of the attorneys, but they are reading this post and if they want to identify themselves they can reply to this post.
Quite simply, as they’ve reviewed hundreds or thousands of affidavits and assignments, and compared the dates and signatures on the documents, they do not appear to be legitimate. In some cases an affiant has allegedly signed dozens of documents in several states all on the same day. In other cases, the signers are allegedly signing documents on days when they have other evidence that the signers could not or should not have been signing on the days the documents are allegedly signed. In almost all the cases, when you compare the alleged signature of the signer with documents which bear the signer’s real signature (like on a mortgage for their own home), the signature on the affidavits and other documents are completely different.
This conduct seriously undermines the judicial system and is totally unacceptable when any party does it….but we have good reason to believe that attorneys affiliated in various ways with the foreclosure mills are actively participating in creating false affidavits and documents. In at least one case, the foreclosure mills “withdrew” affidavits signed by attorneys that were submitted to courts when they were challenged as being fraudulent. When they were sought for deposition, the court granted a protective order preventing the false attorney signers from being deposed….apparently when you commit a fraud on the court and you’re caught, you can withdraw the fraud and you get a free pass.
CALL TO ACTION- GET THE DOCUMENTS!
This cannot be allowed to continue. We all need to work together to collect affidavits and assignments, then post them in one centralized locations so that all who are involved in this fight can compare signatures and dates on these signatures. Depositions are scheduled for several of the false signers and the more examples of affidavits and assignments we have the better. Pro se folks, activists and attorneys, please take some time and email or fax all the affidavits and assignments you can to me. My email is weidnerlaw@yahoo.com, my fax is 727/213-6235. If affidavits are posted elsewhere, please send me links I will post the links.
We are particularly interested in affidavits of attorney time at this stage because depositions of attorneys who purportedly signed these affidavits are currently set. The foreclosure mills are fighting like hell to not have these depositions taken.
What are they afraid of? All the signer has to say is, “Yes, I signed that affidavit.” Problem is outside evidence suggests that the affidavit signer could not have actually signed the affidavit and in many cases, the signatures are wildly different. Nailing the mills on this will have major implications. I’m willing to bet that in many cases, the mills don’t bother to have affidavits of attorney’s time properly prepared, witnessed and notarized. I’m willing to bet they just gloss over these “minor” details and have created some perfunctory process where affidavits are just blown through and signed by any old person…and not the person’s name who is on the signature line….that’s fraud.
If we all do our job and work together here, we will have a database of publicly accessible affidavits that can be compared, used in depositions and shared with the courts…..please help, email or fax affidavits and assignments to 727/213-6235 weidnerlaw@yahoo.com
Hey Truth! UKG here. Hope your dad is hanging tough. Tell him “thanks for serving”. That’s from all of us, I’m sure!
California maintains the least amount of public protection because it has such a high population & even higher economy. The way that the legal profession only protects thier own especially at the bar level, even worse with the courts. if you are pro se and not a licensed attorney or have a title of nobility then the way the judges see it you have no rights because they don’t view you as equals. the only people appointed to be a judge in ca is attorneys, practically the only type of trial that ever takes place in civil court is a bench not a jury and that’s even if your lucky to get to that stage which judges and attoreys on both sides do thier best to make sure doesn’t happen. lawyers/judges have highjacked justice and are holding it for indefinite ransom. pro se’s are the least advantaged, yet are “not worthy” of great privilege and convenience of the CM/ECF system provided by our advanced technology (that’s not equal access to the courts). the only solution remove everyone from office judicial, executive and legislative. then start from the ground up with complete public participation as a whole and bind the would be electors by contract to the public. no more desperate elections/re-elections. aren’t we all tired of settling for hope in a system we have close to zero power and influence over? I know I am
Where is the link to the names of the attorneys who are awake and aware of this process and procedure? Do any attorneys have multi state licenses? Please reply. Thanks!
Need an Attorney in Kansas. Miami/Johnson County area.
Any Kansas Counselor who “Get’s It”?
acassity(at)midwest-connections.com
HOT OFF THE PRESS!!! New York Attorney STOPS foreclosure sale 30 minutes before scheduled sale at 11:30 am on Tuesday, March 9, 2010. Also, in February, another Judge cancelled Sale completely (after sale date was previously scheduled) and vacated his own judgment after same attorney argued on an Order to Show Cause that plaintiff did not have standing; US Bank NA could not prove proper chain of assignment showing ownership of the homeowner’s property. Mr. Donald argued that a fraudulent assignment had been recorded at the City Register. This attorney is running rings around the bank’s lawyers! His name is Farrel Donald, Esq.
Helga
Immediately go down to county recorder’s office and get certified copies of all the recorded documents related to your property. You must determine if whoever says they own your property really does.
Next, recommend getting an attorney asap.
Be sure you retain one who is competent in these matters.
Tim McCandless has two offices in Calif. But be sure to do due diligence and interview several attorneys to find the right one to handle your situation.
Walter Cox, ESQ is another attorney in Calif.
Also, you want to check on the State Bar of California to see if attorney license is in good standing.
You want to look at Martindale Hubbell online to learn of attorney area of expertise and their education.
Ask for references. Always get copy of any contract or agreement you sign with the attorney.
If they require a retainer, they are obligated to provide you with at least a monthly breakdown of how they are spending the retainer.
Good Luck
CAN SOMEBODY PLEASEEEEE HELP ME????
Heres a little break down on whats going on:
1- Was in a loan modification process (For about a year and a half) 1st Notice of Default was December 13,2008, Notice of Sale March 30,2009. (Had been postponed so many times, that Ocwen Mortgage and Aztec foreclosure decided to stop putting a sale date on the property(basically refreeze/hold date). Last time any paperwork that was received was on April 13,2009 from Aztec.
My last convo with the negotiator I had he verbally told me that theres sale date placed for Feb 24, 2010 but would be postponed since were in the process of the modification.
2- Received a letter from lender stating missing documents must be received by March 14, 2010. I immediately e-mailed lender with every document they requested.
3- On Friday February 26, 2010 some guy showed up to my house and told me he purchased my property. (A 3rd party)
4- Been trying to contact Ocwen Mortgage and Aztec Foreclosure to resolve this issue and Ocwen isn’t helping.
My goal is to : Keep the property and definitely sue them for the wrongful foreclosure if possible.
Ive been in real estate for 9 years and was on top of everything. I CANT believe this happened to me.
Pleaseeeeeeeee someone help me..my property is located in california.
Maher,
I wish you could learn to write your thoughts in plain English so someone with an IQ of 140 could understand it. Everything you write feels like a jigsaw puzzle.
No Remedy By Way Of Rescission
An illegal or unenforceable contract which has been executed, will not be rescinded by the courts.
If a person has lost money or parted with any consideration in the performance of an illegal agreement, he will not be aided by the courts in the recovery of what he has parted with. As is frequently said, “The Court will leave him where it finds him.” As the maxim has it, “allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus.”
I would like to ask anyone if you know any bankruptcy lawyer/foreclosure attorney who can help us in our situation. We already in foreclosure, but no sale date yet because of pending loan modification. I live in Cerritos Ca. and willing to look for somebody whom we can trust and knows what he’she is doing. Please help.
@Deontos- I believe you were referring to Attorney Matt Weidner in Florida who puts forth http://www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog , and excellent source of information on Foreclosure, Mortgage Modification, Short Sale Law, etc. I, too, visit his site daily as he seems to always have something interesting to check out.
Any references for an attorney in Ohio?
Thanks
Carlos you might want to get into contact with Maher Soliman he’s not an attorney but very familiar with the complexities of these transactions and he’s not terribly far from you. Also you must be cautious with seeking attorney services in Cali right now most of them are just as predatory as the lenders and see desperate homeowners as easy prey. here’s Maher’s contact good luck MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
How to Find “Who Owns The Note” – Who has an “Insurable Interest” !!!!
It is basic insurance law that in order to become named as a loss payee – that is, to get an insurance policy issued to you to indemnify you against loss – you have to have an “insurable interest.” MERS doesn’t ( as far as I know). It is not a “loss payee”. Every assignment of a mortgage (when the mortgage is sold in the securitization process is insured:
http://www.eagle9.com/policies/Lender_Policy.pdf
(I think I posted this here before, because Eagle9 warns of a loss of assignment if the assignment or hypothecation (sale of chattel paper/mtg) is not recorded under state law AND there is an intervening BANKRUPTCY that supersedes UCC automatic perfection under UCC 9-301 – 304
(yes, I did:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/foreclosure-defense-strategic-bankruptcy-options/ )
Follow the insured interest.
Then you will know who does or does not have an interest in your mortgage.
And thanks to Brad Keiser for reminding me of this again in our telephone conversation yesterday.
Steven K. Kop
Attorney at Law
bluejaylaw@gmail.com
(310) 721-8557
Raja,
I have 4 Indymac loans; 3 in Washington (2 in foreclosure) and 1 in Hawaii (and the other two are getting close to notice of trustee sales). I’d love to find an attorney in Washington and Hawaii that can help me sue them.
Got any ideas as to how I go about finding a good attorney that may be willing to share in the proceeds of sale once we get the title clear, and maybe kick them some cash to get started? It’s so difficult to know where to begin.
THE EMPIRE STRIKES OUT
David(In re Olga) Shaev STRIKES AGAIN.
Pretender’s Attorneys are NO SHOWS at hearing.
———————————–
On November 24, 2009, Debtor objected to Claim # 2. (ECF # 15.) Chase has not responded to the Objection. On January 14, 2010, the Court held a hearing on Debtor’s Objection to Claim # 2. No attorney for Chase appeared at the hearing.
———————————–
Must read LENGTHY case file to really understand
the significance of this. INCREDIBLE. Not over yet,
but a TELLING blow for sure.
========================================
The Home Equity Theft Reporter
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
NY BANKRUPTCY COURT BOUNCES BANK FOR LACK OF STANDING, INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY PROOF SUBSTANTIATING DEBT; CHASE GETS 21 DAYS TO FILE PROPER PAPERWORK
A ruling this week by a New York Federal bankruptcy court bounced, without prejudice,(1) a creditor’s claim filed by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank in a Chapter 13 proceeding filed by a homeowner. According to the ruling, Chase both:
* failed to present evidence necessary to demonstrate that it is either the servicer, note and mortgage holder, or assignee such that it has standing to bring the claim, and
* failed in meeting its evidentiary burden under the Bankruptcy Code and Rules to substantiate its proof of claim (“Unless a proof of claim is properly executed and filed in accordance with the rules, the proof of claim does not constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.” See FED. RULES. BANKR. PROCEDURE 3001(f)).
The court provides a somewhat lengthy analysis of recent bankruptcy court cases that it considered in reaching its ruling, and discusses the level of documentation required to support the prima facie validity of a mortgagee’s claim. The reading is pretty technical, and recommended only for Federal bankruptcy geeks and others who are into this kind of stuff.
For the entire text of the case, see In re: Kerman J. Minbatiwalla, Case No. 09-15693 (USBC S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2010).
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inbco20100301432
(1) The court ruled that the proper creditor may file an amended proof of claim within 21 days of the entry of the court’s order. It said that if Chase holds the note and mortgage, it must affix documents to the proof of claim establishing that relationship. Alternatively, if Chase is not the holder, it must give the holder notice of this 21-day deadline and file a declaration with the Court that such notice has been given. The Debtor has 14 days after any amended proof of claim is filed to object.
Here is my e-mail address
agustini2000c@aol.com
czapata@sansumclinic.org
here is my e-mail address please anyone who knows of an attorney in the Central Coast my zip code 93003
I need an attorney to represent me I am about to be come homeless I have two daughters, we believe we were victims of predatory lending I am in the Ventura County California please call me 805-452-5736.
Please help!
Any One who needs an attorney in VIRGINIA and Maryland please call the following attorneys and tell them I referred
to you..They are doing excellent job and know how to hit these thieves. These both attorneys are representing me.Please call them
Bobbie VARDAN, Esq. (703-475-6244 Mobile)
Vardan@BBILG.com | www. BBILG.com
&
Rachael Hammer Esq.
BBI Law Group, P.C.
8230 Boone Blvd., Suite 330, Vienna, VA 22182
Direct: 703-496-7722|Mobile: 703-217-7823
Fax: 703-997-2473
Maher Solomon ( Do you know me)
1. Indy Mac F.S.B. does not and has never existed, there capacity to maintain a judicial action is questionable.(See FDIC Certificate #29730, it is an in active institution as of 07/11/2008)
2. Indy Mac Federal FSB was created a BRIDGE BANK and is still in receivership. FDIC Certificate # 58912 says it is an in active institution as of 03/19/2009)
3. IMB ( Indy Mac Bank) is in chapter 7 liquidation
4. Indy Mac F.S.B was sold to OneWest Bank by the FDIC.
This statement is not accurate. OneWest purchased the majority of assets of Indy Mac FEDERAL BANK F.S.B.( still under receivership) OneWest did not purchase the name Indy Mac and is a separated financial institution with separate ownership and is in no way, shape or form related to Indy Mac Bank or Indy Mac Federal Bank.
BEWARE OF THEIR FRAUD IN THEIR MOTIONS , ” they write Indy Mac FSB, Indy Mack Federal Bank FSB f/k/a Indy Mac” By doing this their FORECLOSURE Attorneys are misleading the court. It reveals a disturbing lack of candor to use the abbreviated name “INDY MAC” for the both Indy Mac FSB and Indy Mac Federal Bank FSB, so as to purposefully give the false impression that Appellee ever owned the note. This is the fraudulent behavior that must be sanctioned because it is a fraud upon court by misleading the court. ( Indy Mac FSB ceased to exist on 07/11/2008, Indy Mac Federal Bank FSB is still in receivership and controlled by FDIC and Indy Mac Bank is in Chapter-7 Liquidation)
They are doing one more FRAUD by substituting the DEUTSCHE BANK for Indy Mac and producing the Fake, fabricated instrument/assignments. If any one is facing these THIEVES, and have some of their Affidavits, assignments and instruments, please send those to me then I will let you know this Game of FRAUD CLOSURE, as I have more than 100 of these fabricated instruments. I am fighting these SOBs since 2007, both in Federal and State Courts.Now I am going to file another action which will be an atomicbomb for these thieves
5. Indy Mac Federal Bank F.S.B is still in receivership and controlled by the FDIC.
6. There is no mention of Deutsche Bank in the FDIC Master Purchase Agreement.(IT IS A BIG FRAUD)
7.Indy mac Bank is in Chapter 7 liquidation.
Soliman I had the same “Pro Tonto” language written into the debt satisfaction part of the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. In your cases were they the second Trustee’s Deed after a Rescission by the “Beneficiary” of the first one? Call me crazy but I think this is a California Exclusive Occurrence that ties in with your Eminent Domain theory, there have been rumors that SOS Hilary Clinton Struck a Deal with China to keep buying our debt by granting them eminent domain rights to Hawaii & California.
I need an attorney in Michigan – is there any informed attorney’s in this state?
IndyMmac Bank Complaints
I don’t understand – IMB is in receivership or bankrupt. Its toxicity was charged and the performing assets / loans were transfered to Bank One West.
The FDIC would be the endorsement and or assignment authority.
Jeff, What are you saying ….maybe I missed it?
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Carlos—you need to say what state you are in. If in Calif. say north or south or central. There are different federal courts and you’d need to focus on finding a lawyer near you.
Please I need an attorney that could represent me in Federal Court. My family and I we were victims of predatory lending, so we filed a law suit against Countrywide BofA but is getting overwelming we don’t know the rules of the court. Please give us the phone # of an attorney that can help us please!
I am looking for a foreclosure defense attorney in Hawaii. Can you refer someone?
Thankyou,
Michael Hammer
Well Sunshine—you have to say at least what state you are in?
Have you tried lawyers listed on Neil’s list on this site?
Kaye
Catherine King in Redding is supposed to be very good and has attended many workshops on all this.
I have no direct experience with her as I am in a different part of Calif.
However, somebody told me she was very good.
I do not have her phone #.
I was frauded out of my home as well. I am having a hard time finding a lawyer that will get it. I have appraisal fraud and broker as well. I have put up messages before but no avail. I have learned about us bank and their involvment and how they win an unlawfull detainer the dirty way. I would like to become an advocate would someone please contact me… asap
I am still looking for a list of attorneys. Or, is there one somewhere on this site?
Specifically I need to talk to someone in Redding, CA (Shasta County).
FINALLY IS THE FOUL FRAGRANT ODOR OF FRAUD IN HIGH PLACES GETTING SNIFFED BY THE FEDS?
Florida citizens take direct action against Document Mill, LPS.
LPS acknowledges they got “a little problem” in a 10-K filing.
But hey NO WORRIES! We got it all handled now.
Oops!
Law Enforcement Authorities in Georgia may not think so.
US Attorney in Florida is now looking at the matter.
——————————————————
LENDER PROCESSING SERVICE … (LPS) 10-K filed 2/23/2010
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings
Litigation
In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to our operations,…………. We intend to vigorously defend all litigation matters that are brought against us ………Finally, we believe that no actions, other than the matter listed below, depart from customary litigation incidental to our business.
Schneider, Kenneth, et al. vs. Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al.
see: http://4closurefraud.org/2010/02/25/lender-processing-services-inc-form-10-k-ex-21-1-february-23-2010-legal-proceedings/
On February 17, 2010 this putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. ….. a single count complaint, ……. ……. …..essentially alleges that the industry practice of creating assignments of mortgages after the actual date on which a loan was transferred from one beneficial owner to another is unlawful. THE COMPLAINT ALSO CHALLENGES THE AUTHORITY OF INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY OUR DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS SUBSIDIARY TO EXECUTE SUCH ASSIGNMENTS AS OFFICERS OF VARIOUS BANKS AND MORTGAGE COMPANIES. ……. at this early stage we are unable to accurately predict the outcome of this matter.
Regulatory Matters
…………. We subsequently received an inquiry relating to this matter from the Clerk of Court of Fulton County, Georgia, which is the regulatory body responsible for licensing the notaries used by our document solutions subsidiary. ………MOST RECENTLY, WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IS REVIEWING THE BUSINESS PROCESSES OF THIS SUBSIDIARY. We have expressed our willingness to fully cooperate with the U.S. Attorney. ………………
Emmanuel, when the originator started my mortgage application, she inserted false information: a $16,000 savings account that didn’t exist; errant employment info (job title/time; errant education history (made me a college grad). If the asset statement (1003) submitted with your loan package contains errant (read UNTRUE) information, especially financial information, it constitutes fraud. If they took an application over the phone and then “embellished” it to make you look like a better credit risk than you actually were, that’s fraud. Remember, they sold these loans forward based on certain criteria that affected insurance rates and interest rates. When they over appraise your home for $20,000 to cover the amount of the loan, they commit a fraud on the investor (as the home provides the collateral for the amount borrowed) as well as the mortgage insurer. The people that are paying these insurance claims (Republic, MGIC, Triad, PMI Inc, etc.) are finding out that they have been defrauded. They are not happy. Therefore, they are denying claims tendered by the servicers. This may or may not get them to the negotiating table, but you can certainly make their day a little more miserable by having their claims denied by the insurer.
Robert
MERS is a nominee for the shareholders (alleged) but I believe it is set up to mask the derecognition component. I professed long ago the FSB was being used to capitalize denovos and newco. The MERS thing is a fail safe for the accounting rules that again affect derecognition. You see MERS separates at funding what it joins back at foreclosure. No can do!
Nominees were used for tax shelters originating out of the Caymans and Swiss etc. Now the feds offer the same deal and call it a Tax Vacation. None the less the nominee here is for clandestine proposes and offers nothing of value to the equation.
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
“fraudulent asset statements and the like”. Could
you elaborate a little bit more thank you?
Does anyone have a good lead on attorneys in Georgia that REALLY get it?
marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
I’ve been having a little fun contacting wholesale mortgage insurers about my origination. They seem to be very interested once you mention fraudulent asset statements and the like. If you had bad information stuffed into your loan application, send a couple e-mails to the claims processing or loss mitigation departments of the major mortgage insurers. You’ll be surprised when they respond quickly asking for supporting documents for your claims. Give it a shot. It might be enough to get your lender into a lawsuit.
Another Day
Another Outrage
—————————————————
BANKS CONTINUE TO IGNORE COURT ORDERS; BANK OF AMERICA THREATENS FORECLOSURE SALE IN VIOLATION OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
from Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice by Jeff Barnes
February 24, 2010
We have previously advised of the arrogance of IndyMac Bank, who continued to take action to sell a borrower’s home notwithstanding the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting such activities by IndyMac and any agent thereof. Despite the issuance of the Injunction, IndyMac had persons enter onto the borrower’s property and place “For Sale” signs on the front lawn. When the borrower confronted these individuals and showed them a copy of the Injunction, the response was, “WE DON’T GIVE A F–K ABOUT LAWYERS, WE HAVE PLENTY OF LAWYERS.”
IndyMac only ceased its activities upon being threatened with contempt and sanctions by the borrower’s attorney with notice to the court.
This arrogance has now apparently been adopted by Bank of America Home Loans. On February 8, 2010, an Oregon Court entered a Preliminary Injunction on the Motion and filings of FDN attorneys Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local Oregon counsel Philip Anderson, Esq. which prohibited Bank of America Home Loans, MERS, and ReconTrust from selling, transferring, encumbering, or conveying title to the borrower’s property without further Order of the Court, with the injunction remaining in place pending the disposition of the issues raised by the borrower in the Complaint. Despite the entry of this Injunction, Bank of America Home Loans issued a letter to the borrower two weeks later, on February 22, 2010, threatening a foreclosure sale on February 26, 2010, without even acknowledging the issuance of the Injunction. Bank of America has been notified that its threat constitutes a per se violation of the Injunction, and if Bank of America, ReconTrust, or any other party proceeds with any foreclosure activity that the borrower will advise the court and seek a finding of contempt and the imposition of sanctions, and that any such sale would be vacated as a matter of law.
All of this goes to prove several things: that the “lenders” and their agents have absolutely no respect for the Courts; no respect for Court Orders; will do whatever they please unless their feet are held to the fire; and have to be watched like a hawk with eyes in the front, sides, and back of your head. We hope that all counsel defending foreclosures will do so.
Jeff Barnes, Esq.,
Hi; I”m an attorney in the suburbs of Los Angeles, and am looking for an expert who could execute a Declaration and/or testify in a current case as to what MERS is/is not so the Judge will understand it. Any suggestions? thanks
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The implications of the government’s role in a lenders recovery where it is an insurer may ultimately require the use of eminent domain. Sure enough, the “Deed upon Sale” which we have reviewed in over 250 cases does show a sale by, “Pro Tanto”. Thus our claims have been attacked by attorneys and clients as a fraud, sure enough time will tell.
The ability to make good on a governments obligation to insure member banks must eventually face up to the obligations it maintains and collects a tax for. To provide insurance as the FDIC was set up to provide and to then call that commitment something else is deceptive. Herein the reference is to the economic stimulus package which may not be anything more that the appropriate response for FDIC insurance.
Is it wrong for us to question? Is it deceptive? No comment.
Americans have right to know the truth. Attorneys and websites NOT in the “know” have a right to further investigate others claims. This is to be considered before they portray others views as a fraud.
The matter of wrongful foreclosure is so far advanced that those who wish to contribute to the solution will need to be keenly aware of ALL the facts. Furthermore they need to be cognizant of the cost of potentially offering wrong information and showed later to be misinformed.
POWERFULL INFO. Every one in this process of defending home owners and modification company, auditors, so called forensic auditors and HOMEOWNERS should really take the time to read the DEED OF TRUST securing certain rights to these predotory banks to collect on a FRAUDALENT MORTGAGE sceme. COOKED UP and well premeditated by banks including our FEDERAL RESERVE WHO FUNDS THESE BANKS intially…. & WALL ST FIRM EXECUTIVES.
Most will find that under UNDER UNIFORM COVENANTS # 24
Titled Substitute Trustee.
“Lender at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any TRustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County in which the Property is located. The instrument shall contain the name of the original Lender, Trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this Security Instrument is recorded and the name and address of the succssor trustee. Without conveyance of the Property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trudtee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.”
In many cases most will find this is not in fact procedure taken by most Substituted Trustee company’s. Most only find out of any substitution untill notice of default or worst at or during the recording of Notice of sale.
This is a clear Breach of Contract amongst other CCV of 2943, 2923.(b) laws that where recently revised…
I am looking for a list of attorneys. Is there one somewhere on this site? Specifically I need to talk to someone in Redding, CA.
A JUDGE CANNOT CLAIM HE/SHE DOESNT GET IT
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgage-mods17-2010feb17,0,7573498.story
4 MILLION FORECLOSURES IN THE USA. WHAT A SHAME.
WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE. IT IS EASIER TO CONVICT A PERSON OF MURDER (CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE) IN THE USA THAN IT IS TO CONVICT A BANK OF FRAUD.
“All persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded may join as plaintiffs and any person may be made a defendant who has or claims an interest adverse to the plaintiff.”__Fla R. Civ. P. 1.210(a).
Can this rule allow a person to request that a bank to prove it owns the note/mortgage if the property is in his/her neighborhood?
All neighbors have an interest when a property is illegally foreclosed in a community, depressing property value.
marcus@foreclosureProSe.com
need a new jersey that get it…for US 3rd district
FROM ATTORNEY MAX WEIDNER’S BLOG IN FLORIDA:
A real victory for justice, jurisprudence and “rules of evidence”.
The result will hopefully be a true “fair hearing” for foreclosure defendants. Max seems to think this is a WATERSHED decision for the people of Florida.
—————-
BAC FUNDING- The End of Summary Judgment For Foreclosures In Florida?
Every so often, the appellate courts issue opinions that dramatically change the legal landscape. BAC Funding v. US Bank is just such an opinion, because no longer will banks and lenders get a free shot at foreclosure on concocted evidence and mere possession, even of original documents. The full text of the opinion can be found here, but it should be brought to the attention of every judge in every foreclosure case across the state.
The opinion is full of great direction, but the bottom line is the appeals court has made it clear that it is no longer permissible for Plaintiffs attorneys to come marching into court with documents alone….even if they are original documents. Throughout the foreclosure crisis, Plaintiffs attorneys have been permitted to ignore the basic rules of evidence and just enter in documents without any explanation of how they came into possession….this will now change and Plaintiffs will be required to have both the original documents and some evidence to support how they came into possession of the documents–something they will have a difficult time doing in many cases.
Here is language taken directly from the opinion:
* U.S. Bank filed a written response to BAC’s motion to dismiss. Attached as Exhibit A to this response was an “Assignment of Mortgage.” However, the space for the name of the assignee on this “assignment” was blank, and the “assignment” was neither signed nor notarized. Further, U.S. Bank did not attach or file any document that would authenticate this “assignment” or otherwise render it admissible into evidence. (That last sentence is key because it now requires Plaintiffs to “authenticate” their filings.)
* Despite the lack of any admissible evidence that U.S. Bank validly held the note and mortgage, the trial court granted summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. (Although the bank had introduced an assignment, the court is saying that assignment should not have been the basis to grant summary judgment because it was not properly admitted into evidence.)
* When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment before the defendant has filed an answer, “the burden is upon the plaintiff to make it appear to a certainty that no answer which the defendant might properly serve could present a genuine issue of fact.” Settecasi v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Pinellas County 156 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see also W. Fla. Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. Mitchell, 528 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) As these cases show, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed must not only establish that no genuine issue of material fact is present in the record as it stands, but also that the defendant could not raise any genuine issues of material fact if the defendant were permitted to answer the complaint.
* Further, it did not file any supporting affidavits or deposition testimony to establish that it owns and holds the note and mortgage. Accordingly, the documents before the trial court at the summary judgment hearing did not establish U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and thus, at this point, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor. (This language is key because it directs the courts to demand an evidentiary basis for documents, not just the documents themselves.)
* Regardless of whether BAC answered the complaint, U.S. Bank was required to establish, through admissible evidence, that it held the note and mortgage and so had standing to foreclose the mortgage before it would be entitled to summary judgment in its favor. Whether U.S. Bank did so through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer, it was nevertheless required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage it sought to foreclose. See Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (The key word here is “validly”. The Plaintiff cannot just show up in court with the documents, it must validate them and authenticate the documents for the court to consider.)
* The incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as an exhibit to U.S. Bank’s response to BAC’s motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and U.S. Bank submitted no other evidence to establish that it was the proper holder of the note and/or mortgage. (The Plaintiff must introduce authenticated, properly introduced evidence to proceed.)
The Court Recognizes That Insuring Proper Title To Property Will Be a Real Challenge in Years to Come….
Given the vastly increased number of foreclosure filings in Florida’s courts over the past two years, which volume has taxed both litigants and the judicial system and increased the risk of paperwork errors, it is especially important that trial courts abide by the proper standards and apply the proper burdens of proof when considering a summary judgment motion in a foreclosure proceeding. Accordingly, because U.S. Bank failed to establish its status as legal owner and holder of the note and mortgage, the trial court acted prematurely in entering final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings.
And so, in this brand new, and as yet, unpublished opinion, the legal landscape for foreclosures changes forever!
Subject: Why banks are not doing loan modifications
No matter whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party or – heaven forbid – a non-voter, you should watch this short video.
No MBA required to understand it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sL-zMsRU8Y
You will be shocked!
Lennar Buying Billion in Trust Assets
. . .from the FDIC!
Late Wednesday Lenar Corp. purchased $3.05 billion of troubled loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) through a “structured transaction” deal.
Now my friends, I sit here and ask myself these questions:
1) Are these not the same loans the governement aquired from a write down using tax payer bail out funds?
2) Are not these loans the sole ownership of a Trust and its investors under SEC enforcement?
3) Did not the FDIC member banks “lenders” *** SELL*** these loans under FAS 140 once and for all?
4) If the FDIC purchases the loans from the Trust at an amount for or less the investments basis in the assets? Then show me the Ledger entrys under IRS code, GAAP FASB etc, and how they unscambled this egg!
By creating limited liability corporations, Lennar is splitting the ownership stake in the loans 40/60 with the government taking the latter share.
Overall, the Miami-based homebuilder is buying two pools of notes (5,500 mortgages) including distressed residential and commercial real estate assets. The packages were culled from 22 failed banks.
In total, Lennar is putting up just $243 million in cash to acquire its stake with the FDIC providing 0% non-recourse financing of $627 million.
Lennar said its subsidiary, Rialto Capital Advisors, would handle “the day-to-day management and workout of the portfolios.”
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Gradeful for your site. Would like a competent Georgia forclosure defense attorney .
Can send repeat business probably.
okay Maher. The lawyers say “failure to state a claim aginst the Trustee Bank, as they are not the lender”. I know, the trust is fiction, the lender is still the lender (never any surrender of control), the Lender lists the loan as an asset on THEIR books, but the judge says……
“SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF”.
So tell me….
Can the lender assign? Should they have assigned?
Must they assign, or read a sign, so sign this, and you sign that, signage, sinuses.
S T O P!
Wrong Arguments –
Wrong Arguments.
Think outside the box. UsedKar Guy – your house should be yours free and clear by now! I developed a program I will share with Neil and anyone else! My program is called “Party Over” and done in no more than 21 days – Guaranteed Results! (Roger – I don’t known what your doing Bro, really.
Remember this Hindi Movie stars and silly mischief makers remember this . . .
1) The assignment is subject to legalese arguments, rhetorical discourse and case law. I say forget the Trust and assignments for now!
2) The lender is the lender and always has been the lender. The trust is an accounting procedure with a registration number and vintage.
THERE IS NO TRUST CORPORATE OFFICE
3) Empirical testimony does not require case law – sorry counsel! Empirical evidence does not require case law! I don’t need case law to show me how fast sound travels….just a background in math.
M. Soliman
Expert. Witness @ live.com
IG2BK
CIA workers trained Wall Street Firms to Detect Lies
Daniel Nasaw, guardian.co.uk, February 2, 2010
It is hard to imagine two more distrusted and reviled professions. One has been accused of torturing detainees and failing to track down Islamist terror suspects; the other is widely perceived to be responsible for the worldwide recession.
Now, in a move likely to provoke a perfect storm of opprobrium, the two have joined forces: enterprising CIA officers who want to earn a little extra have been given the green light to moonlight for Wall Street firms.
According to a forthcoming book by US reporter Eamon Javers and confirmed by the CIA, financial firms have recruited spooks on active service to help determine if colleagues are telling the truth.
According to Javers, Business Intelligence Advisors (BIA), a Boston-based investment research firm that boasts links to the US intelligence apparatus, employed workers with backgrounds in interrogation and interviewing to train hedge fund managers in a technique called tactical behaviour assessment. This purports to allow practitioners to tell if someone is being dishonest by reading verbal and behavioural clues, such as fidgeting or qualifying statements with words like “honestly” and “frankly”.
One case described by Javers shows how veteran CIA workers helped hedge fund clients to make enormous investment decisions by assessing the veracity of a company’s financial presentation.
In an episode described by Javers, BIA specialists listened in on a financial presentation by executives at a company called UTStarcom, a purveyor of internet and networking equipment. The BIA specialists had problems with an answer about the company’s revenue recognition, finding in the response a “detour statement” intended to avoid commenting on the matter. The specialists said the statement indicated the executive was minimising the accounting problems. The next quarter, UTStarcom’s results shocked the market with revenues significantly below expectations. The reason? Problems with revenue recognition accounting. Shares declined and anyone who had sold the shares short would have reaped huge profits.
In a statement, BIA said it had not co-operated with Javers on the book, and described the depiction of its work in Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy: The Secret World of Corporate Espionage as “inaccurate and misleading”.
The company said: “There are no active-duty CIA personnel providing services to BIA’s clients” – although it acknowledged that it had employed active-duty CIA officers in the past.
It is common for retired CIA officers to take lucrative jobs in security, defence and intelligence contracting, working for private clients as well as the federal government. But others take on extra work while still employed by the agency, doing everything from teaching at local colleges to training clients in lie-detection techniques.
Like other federal government workers, agents must get permission from their bosses for outside work.
“If any officer requests permission for outside employment, those requests are reviewed not just for legality, but for propriety,” CIA spokesman George Little said
FROM FORECLOSURE FRAUD FEED:
ENFORCEABILITY OF SECURITIZED MORTGAGES
Update from Massachusetts, fallout from In re Ibanez. The Plantiffs bar is trying to ADJUST. These methods could also possibly pop up in other jurisdictions. This article also unabashedly discusses the fact that they “got a problem”.
To Neil:
If time permits, can you comment on “CONFIRMATORY ASSIGNMENT”, they have used this in Mass. BK Courts to confiscate homes, two different Judges allowed it.
In re Samuels, Case No. 06-11656 (D. Mass. 2009);
In re Almeida, Case No. 08-17047 (D. Mass. 2009)
==========================
EXAMINING THE ENFORCEABILITY OF SECURITIZED MORTGAGES
in From The Orb
By James L. Rogal on Wednesday 27 January 2010
REQUIRED READING: An important and far-reaching decision recently issued by the Massachusetts Land Court significantly changes the state’s foreclosure practice and detrimentally affects many real estate titles derived from foreclosures completed under the usual and customary foreclosure procedures.
The issues raised by this case, as well as some recent cases from the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court, bring into question the ability of holders of securitized mortgages to exercise their right to foreclose. It is vital for any lenders and servicers referring foreclosures in Massachusetts to understand the implications of these decisions. This memorandum will provide a brief overview of Massachusetts foreclosure practice, describe the case, critique its holding and then offer some possible solutions to the problems it creates.
Overview of Bay State practice
Massachusetts is referred to as a “title theory” state. For the purposes of foreclosure, the holder of the mortgage holds legal title to the real estate, while the borrower has equitable title (called the equity of redemption). Foreclosure forever cuts off the right of the borrower to redeem the debt owed to the lender, merging legal and equitable title.
Although Massachusetts has three statutory types of foreclosures, the vast majority of foreclosures are semi-judicial. First, the lender files a complaint to foreclose a mortgage where the sole issue is whether the borrower is entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The borrower is precluded from raising any defenses in this proceeding, except that he or she is in the active military service. Once a judgment is issued, the lender may exercise the statutory power of sale in the mortgage.
U.S. National Association, Trustee v. Ibanez
In 2008, three companion cases were filed in the Massachusetts Land Court to quiet title to confirm foreclosure sales that had already been completed (U.S. National Association, Trustee v. Ibanez, Mass. Land Court Misc. Case No. 384283, et al.). The Land Court is a specialized trial court with jurisdiction over real estate-related cases, including foreclosures. All three cases involved foreclosures of mortgages that had been securitized.
The limited question presented to the court was whether the publication of the notices of sale was in a legally acceptable newspaper. All three cases were uncontested by the borrowers. Before issuing default judgments, the court, on its own initiative, raised the issue of whether there were valid assignments establishing standing to foreclose. On March 26, 2009, the court issued a decision in Ibanez that answered the newspaper-publication issue in the affirmative but went on to invalidate two out of three foreclosures before it.
The initial Ibanez decision required that the present holder of the mortgage have in its possession a fully executed and recordable assignment prior to serving and publishing the notice of foreclosure sale. The case cast doubt on thousands of foreclosures already completed because the well-established industry practice (formally codified in Title Standard No. 58 of the Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts) was that assignments could be executed and recorded at any time, even after a foreclosure sale.
Based on the initial holding in Ibanez, most lenders rescinded any sales that had assignments executed after the first publication of the notice of sale and repeated the foreclosure from the point of the notice of sale. Because of the uncertainty created by this case, not to mention the possible negative effect on thousands of titles derived from previously completed foreclosures, a motion to vacate judgment was filed, asking the court to reconsider its decision based on additional evidence and legal argument.
Several parties and real estate-related organizations filed amicus briefs. On Oct. 14, 2009, the court issued a lengthy written memorandum and order essentially affirming its March decision, but also took the opportunity to explain what is necessary to establish “standing” to foreclose a mortgage that has been securitized.
The two cases decided in the recent Ibanez opinion involve the foreclosure of mortgages that were securitized. After the mortgages were originated, they were pooled with other mortgages and sold to a depositor and then to an issuing entity, which created different classes of certificates. The certificates were purchased by an underwriter, which then sold the certificates to investors. The foreclosures were brought in the name of the issuing entity.
The collateral file – which included a copy of the mortgages, the original promissory notes endorsed in blank, assignments in blank and securitization agreements – was transferred and held by a custodian and subsequently provided to the court in Ibanez.
The collateral file was offered to the court to establish that there was a chain of ownership from the originating lender to the current holder bringing the foreclosure action. Also submitted to the court were the original promissory notes, which showed that the present holders were the lawful owners of the indebtedness. FINDING PERTINENT LANGUAGE IN THE PRIVATE-PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT “[A]SSIGNMENTS IN RECORDABLE FORM TO EACH SUCCESSIVE ENTITY WERE…REQUIRED AT EVERY STEP IN THE SECURITIZATION CHAIN.”
There were no such assignments in the collateral file, and none were offered to the court. TYPICALLY, NO SUCH COMPLETED AND RECORDABLE ASSIGNMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE COLLATERAL FILE. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE LENDER IN IBANEZ COULD NOT ESTABLISH ITS OWNERSHIP OF THE MORTGAGE AND, AS A RESULT, HAD NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE.
The usual and accepted practice, prior to Ibanez, was to obtain an executed and recordable assignment from the originating mortgagee to the current holder. Despite the usual practice, the court explained that to establish ownership under Massachusetts law and the contractual arrangements of the parties to the securitization documents, there must be assignments by, and between, each successive owner. The court concluded that although the current holders had possession of the notes, they did not have title to the mortgage, and, thus, no standing to exercise the power-of-sale provisions in the mortgages.
It was argued to the court that possession of the note, and nothing more, is sufficient to bring the foreclosure. The court rejected this argument for two reasons.
First, the court observed that the ownership of the mortgage was governed by contract (i.e., the securitization documents), which required executed and recordable assignments. Thus, the present holder could not have contractually been entitled to foreclose without the assignments, despite possession of the note.
Second, in Massachusetts a mortgage is a conveyance of land. Any further conveyance of rights must be by a writing – in this case, by an assignment. The court declared that having possession of the note only gives the holder the right to an assignment of the mortgage. Merely having the right to the mortgage, according to the court, does not make a party the holder of the mortgage for the purposes of foreclosure. In effect, the holder of the note and the holder of the mortgage can be two distinct entities.
A further argument made to the court was that the present holder was authorized to act on behalf of the original mortgagee for the purposes of foreclosure. The court rejected this argument, as well, on the grounds that any such authority had to be of record. It stated that interests in land must be recorded to give notice to all those that have rights in the particular property and that, as a matter of consumer protection law, complete transparency is preferred, especially where there is a foreclosure forever terminating the borrower’s rights to the property. Here, the foreclosure was brought by the purported present holder of the mortgage, but with no apparent assignment or authority.
Analysis of Ibanez
The Ibanez decision is problematic for several reasons. First, it goes against the longstanding Massachusetts practice represented by Title Standard No. 58. Thousands of foreclosures in Massachusetts over several decades, including foreclosures of securitized mortgages, have been conducted without all of the “necessary” assignments executed and in recordable form prior to the first publication of the notice of sale, as ruled by the court in Ibanez.
SECOND, THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH SUCCESSIVE OWNER IN THE SECURITIZATION PROCESS MUST EXECUTE AN ASSIGNMENT IN RECORDABLE FORM IS NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO CURRENT INDUSTRY PRACTICE, BUT ALSO MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH.
Third, no title derived from a foreclosure that does not comply with the requirements set out in this case is marketable, and may not be insurable. The court offered no curative to this problem, either by some type of documentation or by making the ruling prospective.
There is some question as to the precedential value of this decision. It was made by a trial judge in the land court and not an appellate court. Nevertheless, the real estate bar and the major title insurers have taken the position that, at least as to the earlier Ibanez ruling, an assignment from the original mortgagee to the present holder must be executed in recordable form prior to the notice of sale. Thus, the foreclosures without such an assignment will not be able to be sold after the foreclosure sale.
As of the publication of this article, the title insurance industry has not issued underwriting guidelines in light of the Ibanez decision for real estate title derived from a foreclosure.
A further problem is the possibility that borrowers will more vigorously challenge the validity of foreclosures of securitized mortgages. Massachusetts has an active plaintiffs’ bar, as evidenced by a class action pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Manson, et als v. Wells Fargo Bank NA as trustee). There is a strong possibility that the court’s reasoning in Ibanez will provide ammunition for the plaintiffs’ bar to sue the lenders and servicers in this case for wrongful foreclosure, as well as for other foreclosures involving securitized mortgages.
Bankruptcy cases: Samuels and Almeida
There have been two recent cases decided by different judges in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re Samuels, Case No. 06-11656 (D. Mass. 2009); In re Almeida, Case No. 08-17047 (D. Mass. 2009)).
In Samuels, the debtor objected to the lender’s proof of claim, which was for a residential mortgage, based on standing. The debtor asserted that the lender did not have standing to enforce its secured claim, because it did not own the mortgage. To prove its standing, the lender submitted the securitization documents.
The court determined that the securitization documents, in and of themselves, did not establish standing. As in Ibanez, there were no written, properly executed assignments among the various parties to the securitization documents. There was, however, a confirmatory assignment between the originating mortgagee and the present holder of the secured claim. THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE CONFIRMATORY ASSIGNMENT WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESENT HOLDER TO ENFORCE ITS CLAIM.
The Almeida case involved a motion for relief from the automatic stay filed by a mortgagee seeking relief to foreclose its securitized mortgage. The debtor objected to the mortgagee’s standing to bring the motion. As in Samuels, the mortgagee submitted the securitization documents and a confirmatory assignment from the original mortgagee to the present holder of the mortgage to demonstrate its standing. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPERLY EXECUTED CONFIRMATORY ASSIGNMENT CONFERRED STANDING ON THE PRESENT HOLDER, despite the fact there were no written assignments among the parties to the securitization documents.
Samuels and Almeida were decided prior to Ibanez, and both were from the bankruptcy court. Although there are obvious and different considerations between standing for a creditor to enforce its rights and ownership to foreclose a mortgage in state court, there is, arguably, no reason that distinguishes what is required to establish ownership of the mortgage. There does, in turn, appear to be a conflict between the Massachusetts Land Court and the Bankruptcy Court with regard to their respective interpretations of the securitization documents.
Securitization of mortgages provided the financial fuel for the boom in real estate that occurred in the past 10 years. Now that the housing boom has gone bust and the investors holding those nonperforming mortgages want to enforce their rights, the securitization process is throwing up legal obstacles.
The problems created by securitization go beyond the investors, however, by clouding real estate titles involving a foreclosure. Because there are potential defects in thousands of properties with foreclosures in the chain of title, potential buyers at foreclosure auctions will be scared off, and it will be difficult to sell these properties in the distressed-property market. Cities with large numbers of foreclosures may face a deepening crisis by being unable to get these properties to new owners, furthering urban blight.
Complications stemming from securitization will also likely lead to increased, costly litigation as distressed borrowers look for ways to keep their homes, even in cases where they are in serious default. The courts may feel they are protecting homeowners from invalid foreclosures, but the consequences, intended or otherwise, may cause great societal harm.
James L. Rogal is an attorney with Woburn, Mass.-based Ablitt Law Offices who specializes in real estate law, bankruptcy and civil litigation. He can be reached jrogal@acdlaw.com
I’ve been contacted by an east coast law firm who is pursuing investor claims against Wells Fargo. I am supplying documentation to them. They are out to prove that the fraud was committed by the originators and agents, NOT THE BORROWERS.
And Maher, we both know the regulators aren’t regulating. They are complicit at this point. It’s up to Department of Justice and Treasury, even though COC is the enforcer. And we both know Treasury is complicit as well. So there you have it: Justice Department. But do you think they’re going to take on the COC, FDIC, and Treasury for the lead on prosecution? I think not.
I know the tide is turning in the courts, but it’s taking way too long. The government and the media refuse to expose the mortgage-backed and asset-backed markets for what they are: a fraud and mockery of the U.S. Banking and Tax Law, and the UCC.
This case full” of valid defenses and arguments that can be used to DEFEAT MERS nationwide.
***MERS has nothing to do with a winning affirmative defense.
Jeff Barnes, Esq. is quite impressed by the judges writing in this case. The judge talks about the SEPARATION OF THE NOTE.
****Again,its an interesting condition subsequent and grounds for a technical defect but really has nothing to do with your obligation and best case affirmative defense.
Does that sound like judicial recognition of “nullity”? That would be HUGE.
*** Ahhhh, okay! Like null and void. Look , your lender has no standing to execute a foreclosure with the exception of an “executive order”. And this is really huge – A Promissory note , like a post dated check can never be acceptable as consideration for deposit. This is no doubt, take it to the bank, no question about it…this is an adverse recovery by a quasi government entity for obligations “then” secured.
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
From Foreclosure Defense Nationwide:
A summary of a TEXTBOOK Case File. This case may be “chock full” of valid defenses and arguments that can be used to DEFEAT MERS nationwide. Jeff Barnes, Esq. is quite impressed by the judges writing in this case. The judge talks about the SEPARATION OF THE NOTE. Does that sound like judicial recognition of “nullity”? That would be HUGE.
————————————————-
VERMONT COURT REJECTS MERS’ PURPORTED AUTHORITY AND EXPRESSLY LIMITING MERS’ ROLE IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
February 1, 2010
February 1, 2010
The Rutland, Vermont Superior Court has expressly rejected any authority of MERS to foreclose either in its own name or as “nominee”. The 19-page decision in MERS v. Johnston et al., Rutland Superior Court Docket No. 420-6-09, is a literal treatise of MERS law from recent decisions around the United States including the Kansas decision in Landmark National Bank v. Kesler (which opinion was previously posted on this blog). The decision highlights the inconsistent positions taken by MERS in litigation against its representations in mortgage documents, and thoroughly dispenses of the “agent” position taken by other courts (such as the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the Blau case, although the Vermont decision does not cite Blau by name).
Significantly, even after granting MERS a default judgment, the Vermont Court raised the issue of MERS’ standing “sua sponte” (on its own), after the Landmark (Kansas) decision was issued and vacated its prior default judgment which had been entered in favor of MERS. The Court discussed, in detail, who can enforce a mortgage and who can foreclose; cited the pertinent portions of the mortgage document which identified MERS and what its alleged authority was; and set forth how MERS purported to expand its otherwise limited authority without legal authority.
The Court held that “Importantly, MERS and the lender WMC purposely chose to use the specific legal term ‘nominee’, and not ‘agent’ or ‘power-of-attorney’. MERS also chose not to define the term “nominee”. Furthermore, the mortgage deed consistently referred to the Lender’s rights in the property, and not MERS’s”.
Rejecting MERS’ standing to foreclose either in its own right or as “nominee” for some other entity, the Vermont Court relied not only the Landmark (Kansas) decision, but also on the In Re Sheridan decision from the Bankruptcy Court of Idaho which held that “if MERS is only the mortgagee, without ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right”.
The Court went on to hold, in discussing the language in mortgage instruments which gives MERS “only legal title” to the mortgage that “legal title does not necessarily signify full and complete title or a beneficial interest”, and that ”solely as nominee”, with all rights as to notice, payment and interest in the property being kept with the lender, that there was no indication that MERS was an agent or power-of-attorney for the lender. The Court thus declined to accept the “agent” logic utilized by some other courts (e.g. the Arizona Federal Court) ”as it ignores black letter mortgage law”.
The Court found that “MERS and the lender intentionally split the obligation and the mortgage deed” as “This split was necessary to create the MERS system and facilitate the growth of the secondary mortgage market”, citing an article from the Idaho Law Review which stated that “for mortgages sold into the secondary market, legal title and equitable ownership are commonly severed. Mortgage servicers retain bare legal title to facilitate mortgage servicing; equitable interests are transferred to the investor”.
As MERS has no authority because it lacks an ownership in the mortgage instrument (which ownership interest was, on a massive scale, transferred into tranches of securitized mortgage loan trusts in connection with the creation of mortgage-backed securities, a/k/a “mortgage pass-through certificates”), MERS cannot “assign” anything as it never owned the thing which it purports to assign. The Vermont decision thus provides support for the attack upon the validity of any MERS assignment, for if MERS cannot foreclose either in its own right or as “nominee”, it certainly cannot undertake any action to foreclose by indirect action which would include a purported “assignment” of either the mortgage or the Note for purposes of instituting or maintaining a foreclosure. (MERS also cannot assign the Note for other reasons previously discussed on this blog in connection with the Idaho U.S. District Cout decision in the Wilhelm case).
Vermont has thus done what the states of Kansas, Arkansas, Idaho, Washington, South Carolina, and others have done: hold MERS to its affirmative representations in mortgage instruments and nullify its purported attempt to expand its stated limited authority. It is hoped that other states will adopt this well-reasoned opinion just as the Vermont opinion adopted well-reasoned decisions from Kansas, New York, Idaho and other jurisdictions.
Ask the Expert: The SEC and tighter regulation of asset-backed securities.
How much are they doing, the SEC, and is it a little too late. Or, is it time to safe guard the investor and move on into an new era of mortgage backed securitization?
Any comments?
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Please voice your opposition to this by contacting:
Senator Bill Nelson
Landmark Two
225 East Robinson Street, Ste 410
Orlando, Florida 32801
His office has been helpful in my cases.
Office of Senator Bill Nelson contact numbers;
Fax: (407) 872-7165
Telephone: (407) 872-7161
Toll-free in Florida Only: (888) 671-4091
ALERT – Florida Banksters Move to Dramatically Speed Up the Foreclosure Process by Changing FL to a NON JUDICIAL STATE
4closureFraud
WE ARE FINDING IN 2010 THAT THINGS ARE GETTING A LOT MORE INTERESTING!
by MSoliman
January 2010
There is no enforceability under the PSA and these investments are long suspended or delisted. The assets are orphaned sort of speak and If you bring an action you must be cognizant of not yielding to a “vulture” liquidators desire to establish its standing.
In the cases witnessed and to which I have testified the, Assignment failed to name Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights, title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as of the date of the Foreclosure Complaint.
The Assignments, in every instance, express a present intent to convey all rights, title and interest in the Mortgage and the accompanying Note to the Plaintiff named in the Foreclosure Complaint .
Such assignments are lacking and solely rely on a presumption of sufficient consideration
These means and methods for liquidating assets have all the earmarks of a charged balance sheet and assets written down and charged to future earnings.
Absent these foreclosures are Lawful intent and evidence of any consideration necessary for transfers and a foreclosure remedy.
Judicial requisites for any condition precedent and subsequent are lost to the claims of the liquidators upon which sufficient consideration is certain for filing purposes and charging losses to future income.
A foreclosure claim falls into a multi-diversity and opens arguments to unlimited jurisdiction .
Although folks make this tougher than it is. A production of documents in line with ledger entries and demand to produce a even a non qualified statement are critical and the request for journal entry is sustainable. Subpoena a Trust Departments ledger for accounting disclosure under a “motion of accounting irregularity” and seek to encounter the counter claims for protection under a 15D .
Accountants skilled in the area of securities errors and omissions are as scarce as are the attorneys meeting the capacity requirements to pursue these matters in court.
Litigating a counter claim to A right to foreclosure will truly benefit from a detailed reconstruction of the “general ledger” which is something we now do for clients. You wont believe your eyes herein. It likely will cause the court to conclude with little effort the beneficiaries true rights to foreclose upon the anticipated lack of evidence of a lawful transfer and assignment.
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
I’m not in bankruptcy. I have the original note signed in ink Stamped fully paid and satisfied stamped pay to the order of ——— blank signed by the VP of the original lender. Along with a letter addressed to me stating the loan is paid in full.
The bank deposed me.
Tony –
Your so so close and yet so far. Who are you deposing? Why depose MERS as they are you biggest allies. Why are you not deposing the FDIC?
Do you realize the more time goes on theworse thing look for you? Lenders are winning properties back hands down – want to know how they are doing it? [They say little, do even less and are very effective at somthing called “adverse possession”]
People…its frustrating really. A bankruptcy attorney is the kiss of death! Talk about establishing a party removed from the note and deed and giving them instant standing in a district court. Stay away from bad “Dim Sum” and BK if at all possible. . .in my opinion. The party who claims to be a lender is not a lender. You know that! Stop recognizing them as that and follow theses steps and do not waiver
1) Refuse an offer for modifcation
2) Prepare your lender letter – its a 21 day demand to put up or shut up.
2) File a Quiet Title action – (craft it carefully) after allowing the time for lender to respond above.
You’ll need a lawyer and that may even be provided for free – really! At no cost to you.stop giving the voice on the phone credability and tell them go away once and for all.
Msoliman
Expert.witness@live.com
Banks first , Mers is next they did the fraudulent assignment ! All its rights, title and interest in and to a certain mortgage, together with the NOTE…..
can’t spell this morning that word was held.
Ms.
you can read my story here under semantics- what a difference a word makes. That explains the fraud completely but I do have more because i’m fighting a foreclosure and I had a deposition yesterday, he was in shock that I had proof I made every payment on time and never missed one and he ask me if I still had the note and all correspondence sent to me. Priceless to see his face when I said EVEN THE ENVELOPE it was sent addressed to me in. They filed a lp and complaint thath they helad the note and mortgage and I had not made a payment since SEPT>08.
Toney Brown
This is huge and the Paid in Full is in support of my testimony. One security is exchanged for another and thus the egg cannot be unscambled.
msoliman
expert.wintess@live.com
To Ms
I have the original note stamped fully paid and satisfied, along with a letter stating the same. The Lender is now defunct. The ROD in my county would not let me satisfy the mortgage Pro-se ( I went there yesterday) The ROD will not accept the note either as proof of payment. long story but I’m being foreclosed upon and I don’t understand why this Bank put an assignment from Mers on the mortgage from a company that is no longer in business and I have the note.
Hey, MS! Where have you been? I missed you.
Question…. Can I sign a satisfaction affidavit in South Carolina Pro-se?
Why?
1) Basis for the argument?
2) Intentions?
3) Are you offering a valid argument for your move against the lender?
4) Do it but what is your support for the move.
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Borrower is “Trustor” and “maker of the note”. The lender is a beneficiary until the loan is sold.
Lender lives forever in record and beneficiaries are transferred in and out for VALUABLE CONSIDERATION!
THE ASSETS CAN BE TRANSFERRED over and over again by lawful assignment.The Trustee takes an assignment of your home and holds it in safe keeping in the event of a default(yeah right).
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Question…. Can I sign a satisfaction affidavit in South carolina Pro-se?
have the original note signed in ink stamped fully paid and satisfied and endorsed the UCC is clear:U.C.C. – ARTICLE 3 – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
§ 3-201. NEGOTIATION.
(a) “Negotiation” means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.
(b) Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder. If an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.
§ 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT.
“Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
§ 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
(a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:
(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
(2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
(b) Notice of discharge of a party, other than discharge in an insolvency proceeding, is not notice of a defense under subsection (a), but discharge is effective against a person who became a holder in due course with notice of the discharge. Public filing or recording of a document does not of itself constitute notice of a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument.
(c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor’s sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization
Ira-
Trustor (legal definition) – Webster’s New World Law Dictionary:
The person who created the trust, also known as the donor or the grantor.
“What you create you can uncreate … as you would a WILL”.
Any thoughts about an Assignment of Note that states “borrowers are Trustors”? Does the term Trustor have any meaning and offer to the issuer/borrower any remedy?
Many THOUSAND THANKS to “J in CO”. An incredible post he did on “Foreclosure Hamlet” regarding WAMU Securitization and current litigation.
“J” , I have spent MANY hours at the secinfo site very fruitlessly, perhaps with this post and Abby’s and a few others I will finally be able to track down my STUFF!
I have tried twice now to RE-POST here at “LL”, but the “post” just keeps disappearing into never-never land!
Here is the link to Foreclosure Hamlet:
X_ http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/forum/topics/washington-mutual-info
GOOGLE DICTIONARY CREEPING INTO LEGAL SPACE
Blacks The Legal Writing Blog and the Law Librarian Blog point out in these posts that the new Google Dictionary, which was quietly rolled out in December 2009, presents a formidable competitor not only for other Web dictionaries such as Answers.com, but also potentially to niche lexicons like Black’s Law Dictionary.
Up until December, Answers.com was Google’s default dictionary. Now, of course, the search giant is sending users to its own guide, and the Law Librarian blog says that it marks the beginning of a new way that Google will invade the legal world, as Google Dictionary already contains results for numerous legal terms. The Law Librarian states that:
It’s not exactly going to challenge Black’s for authority or definitions, but it seems to have some value. Search for res ipsa loquitur and there will be a set of results that define and link to further information. Random comparisons with Black’s entries show nothing for fettering of property, and feorme, but definitions for terms such as feoffment, food safety and inspection service, and Hatch Act certainly appear.
I tried it out myself on a host of legal terms that came quickly to mind, and was able to get results for almost all of them (“motion for summary judgment”; “interpleader”; “chattel).” Many of the results did not provide a straight definition, however, instead offering links to relevant entries on other sites such as Wikipedia.org.
It seems to me that although Google Dictionary is not a Black’s Law Dictionary killer today, Google could undoubtedly partner with a legal definitions provider and flick a switch tomorrow if it wanted to provide a free, comprehensive and easy-to-use law dictionary.
Here is some email on Huxtable v. Geithner:
Hi Dan,
You’ve failed miserably to stop Atlantic Yards so far. I think the case below is your last chance. I am forwarding the case and the email I wrote the lawyer in that case. The principles are the same ones I wrote about in my book, The Eminent Domain Revolt.
The point of the California case below is that the government wants to keep people in their housing. The circumstances of this case are foreclosure. However, the government’s goal overrides foreclosure considerations. Therefore, the goal also overrides eminent domain considerations. Use this case to show that the government ITSELF has concluded that housing enjoys a higher level of scrutiny than Lindsey v. Normet minimum scrutiny. This is what the plaintiffs are going to do now that the judge has told them to go ahead and demand discovery on the issue of “affirmative burdens” imposed by the modification legislation.
This means finding out the government’s deliberative process when it came to drafting the modification legislation. They will find out that the government concluded that housing was an important fact and that the government used, even if unknowingly, the Barnette “important facts” test. They will also find out that government’s conception of the Constitution in developing the modification legislation was NOT that government is a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose (minimum scrutiny), but instead, that government is the maintenance of important facts. In short, government used, even if unknowingly, the “maintenance” standard of West Coast Hotel and Carolene Products.
Thus, if housing survives foreclosure, by what rationale does it NOT survive eminent domain. It is obvious that foreclosure is now SEVERELY DISFAVORED by the government as a reason for removing people from housing. Make government show how eminent domain is any different from foreclosure, ESPECIALLY since discovery will show in the Agnew case that the government feels housing is an important fact, that is, that it is on the same level of protection as exercises of religion, freedom of assembly, voting and protected speech.
Hi,
You wanted movement on the litigation front toward new rights, and I think this case, which just was issued, is it. I reproduce it below and my email to the lawyer.
What I think the judge wants in the discovery process, is for plaintiffs to show that the government ITSELF used the Barnette test in formulating the mortgage modification program, that the government found that housing is an important fact, and that the government ITSELF moved housing above Lindsey v. Normet minimum scrutiny.
I think minimum scrutiny for housing is now over. The rest of the maintenance regime should follow, especially as it becomes clear that important facts are interrelated.
LYNNE HUXTABLE and JEFFREY A. AGNEW, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 09cv1846 BTM(NLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 23, 2009, Decided
December 23, 2009, Filed
CORE TERMS: lender, public function, joint action, mortgage, factual allegations, private entities, modification, state action, state actors, quotations, guaranty, notice, home mortgage, mortgage loan, mere fact, federal program, summary judgment, fully developed, fact-bound, foreclosed, defaulted, federally, veteran’s, nexus, government officials, discovery, recorded
COUNSEL: [*1] For Lynne Huxtable, Jeffrey A Agnew, Plaintiffs: Jeffrey Alan Agnew, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeffrey A Agnew, Attorney at Law, Ramona, CA.
For Timothy F. Geithner, as United States Secretary of the Treasury, United States Department of the Treasury, Defendants: Thomas C Stahl, LEAD ATTORNEY, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of California, San Diego, CA.
For The Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for the Federal National Mortgage Association and for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, doing business as Freddie Mac, doing business as Fannie Mae, Defendant: Christopher S Tarbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
For National City Corporation, a Delaware corporation, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc, a Pennsylvania corporation, National City Mortgage, a division of National City Bank, National City Bank, a nationally chartered bank, Defendants: Cathy Lynn Granger, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Irvine, CA.
For Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, a California corporation, Defendant: Thomas N Abbott, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pite Duncan LLP, San Diego, CA.
JUDGES: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: Barry Ted Moskowitz
OPINION
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
On [*2] September 21, 2009, Defendants National City Bank and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Complaint arises out of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings related to their home in Ramona, California. The following are factual allegations in the Complaint and are not the Court’s findings.
Plaintiffs defaulted on their home mortgage in November 2007. (Compl. P 26.) In February 2008, a notice of default was recorded and served. (Compl. P 27.) And in December 2008, a notice of sale was recorded and served, setting a date for the public auction of Plaintiffs’ home. (Compl. P 29.) Pursuant to a joint motion, the Court has enjoined the sale of Plaintiffs’ home during the pendency of this action. (September 29, 2009 Order, Doc. 25.)
Plaintiffs allege that they are eligible for a loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). (Compl. P 95.) HAMP is a federally funded program that allows mortgagors to refinance their mortgages and reduce their monthly payments. (Compl. P 66.) Despite their eligibility for HAMP, [*3] the loan servicer, Defendant National City Mortgage Company, twice denied their application for a loan modification. (Compl. PP 90, 93.) Plaintiffs did not receive a reason for the denial or an opportunity to appeal. (Compl. P 100.)
Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains two counts. Both are for violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment for failing to create rules implementing HAMP that comport with due process. (Compl. PP 114-27.)
Defendants National City Bank and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. have moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead that they are state actors.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the plaintiff is required only to set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). [*4] But only factual allegations must be accepted as true–not legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Furthermore, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants have violated their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights. The Fifth Amendment, however, only applies to governmental actions, Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008), and the Moving Defendants are private entities. Therefore, the Moving Defendants argue, the Complaint fails to state a claim against them.
But in some circumstances the Fifth Amendment does apply to private entities. “In order to apply the proscriptions of the Fifth Amendment to private actors, there must exist a sufficiently close nexus between the (government) and the challenged action of the . [*5] . . (private) entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the (government) itself.” Rank v. Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal quotations omitted). There are four different tests used to determine whether private action can be attributed to the state: “(1) public function; (2) joint action; (3) governmental compulsion or coercion; and (4) governmental nexus. Satisfaction of any one test is sufficient to find state action, so long as no countervailing factor exists.” Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003). The application of these tests is a “necessarily fact-bound inquiry.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 939, 102 S. Ct. 2744, 73 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1982).
Plaintiffs argue that two tests apply here: public function and joint action.
1. Public Function
“Under the public function test, when private individuals or groups are endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional limitations. The public function test is satisfied only on a showing that the function at issue is both traditionally and exclusively governmental.” Kirtley, 326 F.3d at 1093 [*6] (internal quotations and citations omitted). Mortgage loan servicing is neither traditionally nor exclusively governmental, and Plaintiffs cannot show government action under this test.
2. Joint Action
Under the joint action test, the Court considers “whether the state has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with the private entity that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity. This occurs when the state knowingly accepts the benefits derived from unconstitutional behavior.” Kirtley, 326 F.3d at 1093 (internal quotations omitted). “A private party is liable under this theory, however, only if its particular actions are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with those of the government.” Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura County, 294 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). “The mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not itself convert its action into that of the State . . . . Nor does the fact that the regulation is extensive and detailed . . . .” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350, 95 S. Ct. 449, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477 (addressing equivalent provision in Fourteenth Amendment).
The Court does not have sufficient facts before it to determine whether [*7] state action exists here. As the Supreme Court has stated, this is a “necessarily fact-bound inquiry.” Lugar, 457 U.S. at 939. Although the mere fact that a business is subject to extensive regulation is not sufficient to find joint action, here there may be more than just extensive regulation. Plaintiffs have pled that the HAMP program imposes affirmative duties on lenders, like the Moving Defendants, who participate in the program. If an applicant meets certain federally created criteria, then the lender has no discretion and must grant a loan modification. The federal program is completely administered by the Moving Defendants, and they are essentially acting as the government’s agents in executing HAMP. Making all reasonable inference in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court find that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Of course, facts developed through discovery may ultimately show that Plaintiff cannot establish state action. But at this stage in the litigation, the Court does not have the answers to several relevant issues, including (1) whether government officials were involved in the decision to deny Plaintiff’s request; (2) whether government officials [*8] provide guidance to the Moving Defendants regarding the administration of HAMP; (3) the extent of ongoing communication between the government and the Moving Defendants regarding HAMP; (4) and the financial arrangements between the government and the Moving Defendants regarding HAMP. This is not an exhaustive list and the course of discovery may yield other relevant facts not listed here.
Defendant’s best case–which it does not cite–in support of its motion to dismiss is Rank v. Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1982). In Nimmo, the Ninth Circuit held that a private mortgage lender who foreclosed on a plaintiff’s property was not a state actor. The plaintiff had obtained a mortgage loan through the VA Home Mortgage Guarantee Program, which was a federal program that guaranteed a portion of a qualifying veteran’s mortgage, enabling veterans to obtain mortgage loans without a substantial down payment. 677 F.2d at 693-94. A private commercial lender made a loan to the plaintiff under the program. Id. at 693. When the plaintiff defaulted, the lender foreclosed on the plaintiff’s property. Id. at 695-96. The Plaintiff sued the lender for depriving him of his entitlement to a federal-home-loan [*9] program without affording him due process under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 696. The Ninth Circuit held that even though the private lender was subject to extensive federal regulation under the federal home loan guaranty program, the private lender was not a state actor. Id. at 702.
This case is different from Nimmo for at least two reasons. First, and most importantly, the Ninth Circuit decided Nimmo on cross motions for summary judgment and had the benefit of a more fully developed factual record. And second, the guaranty program at issue in Nimmo was very different from HAMP. Under the guaranty program, private lenders applied to the government for participation in the program and the government could deny their participation if the private lender failed to meet certain criteria. 677 F.2d 692, 694. But in this case, Plaintiffs contend that the government required private lenders to participate if they have received federal money, and the private lenders must administer HAMP on the government’s behalf. Whether this is correct or not is not an issue that can be determined on the record before the Court.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. [*10] 21.) The Moving Defendants may raise their argument again on a motion for summary judgment once the record has been more fully developed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 23, 2009
/s/ Barry Ted Moskowitz
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: John Ryskamp
To: jeffreyagnew@yahoo.com
Sent: Sun, January 10, 2010 7:22:00 PM
Subject: The case
Hi Jeffrey,
I read the decision in the case. I think that this decision means that the government, by this program, has raised the level of scrutiny for housing above minimum scrutiny (Lindsey v. Normet).
Several years ago I wrote a legal study of the anti-eminent domain movement (The Eminent Domain Revolt). I argued there that the movement for new individually enforceable rights came from a changed understanding of West Coast Hotel and Carolene Products. If you notice, the Court explicitly uses the term “maintenance” as the reason for upholding the policies in both cases. I think they are saying something other than what is usually attributed to them. These cases are usually said to stand for the proposition that policy must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (minimum scrutiny). There is vast discretion in the political system with respect to the facts, and “affirmative” rights enjoy only minimum scrutiny.
I think the “affirmative burdens” notion in the judge’s opinion means that the distinction between “affirmative” and “negative” rights is a false one. This goes along with the idea that “maintenance” means the Court is looking for something else in policy.
It is looking for policy to maintain important facts. The test for an “important” fact comes from Barnette. An important fact is
1. a fact of human experience
2. which history shows
3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.
That’s how exercises of religion were removed from the political system and elevated to strict scrutiny.
Now this decision elevates housing above minimum scrutiny. I am writing this so that you will be aware of this background, and in using discovery to uncover the government’s purpose, you will look for evidence that the government ITSELF has subjected housing to this Barnette test, and has concluded that housing is an important. That is what the mortgage modification program actually does.
Force the Barnette test on them. If you rely on Lindsey then it won’t matter how important the government considers housing to be. But Lindsey is a misreading of West Coast and Carolene.
Cheers,
John Ryskamp
Hi
I have not ever seen Mr.Soliman post here lately. Why not?
If your are a solution to the bank and lender problem or it does exists – where is the case support and homeowner decisions? Now you can say you will offer expert training course after running Mr Soliman off the site with some attacks. This is not ever fair to readers. To those who support or following his work. You see my problems here? You seem to want to make money in this critical markets.
Thank you. LV
January 2, 2010
Op-Ed Contributors
A NATION OF DO-IT-YOURSELF LAWYERS
By John T. Broderick Jr. and Ronald M. George
AMERICA’S courts are built on a system of rules and procedures that assume that almost everyone who comes to court has a lawyer. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. An increasing number of civil cases go forward without lawyers. Litigants who cannot afford a lawyer, and either do not qualify for legal aid or are unable to have a lawyer assigned to them because of dwindling budgets, are on their own — pro se. What’s more, they’re often on their own in cases involving life-altering situations like divorce, child custody and loss of shelter.
As the economy has worsened, the ranks of the self-represented poor have expanded. In a recent informal study conducted by the Self-Represented Litigation Network, about half the judges who responded reported a greater number of pro se litigants as a result of the economic crisis. Unrepresented litigants now also include many in the middle class and small-business owners who unexpectedly find themselves in distress and without sufficient resources to pay for the legal assistance they need.
As judges, we believe more needs to be done to meet this growing challenge: an inaccessible, overburdened justice system serves none of us well. California took a major step forward in October when it became the first state to recognize as a goal the right to counsel in certain civil cases. (The state also committed to a pilot project, financed by court fees, to provide lawyers for low-income citizens in cases where basic human needs are at stake.)
But this is only a beginning. It is essential that we promote other efforts to close the “justice gap.”
One such effort involves the “unbundling” of legal services. Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association, or similar provisions, which allow lawyers to unbundle their services and take only part of a case, a cost-saving practice known as “limited-scope representation” that, with proper ethical safeguards, is responsive to new realities.
Traditionally, lawyers have been required to stay with a case from beginning to end, unless a court has excused them from this obligation. Now, in those states that explicitly or implicitly allow unbundling, people or businesses can hire a lawyer on a limited basis to help them fill out forms, to prepare documents, to coach them on how to present in court or to appear in court for one or two hearings.
For example, a lawyer could advise a client in a divorce proceeding about legal principles governing the division of marital assets or provide assistance in calculating child-support obligations. A lawyer might also draft pleadings or legal memos or provide representation at a hearing to obtain a domestic-violence restraining order.
What could be wrong with this? Well, some lawyers have expressed concern that limited legal representation will encourage litigants to dissect their cases in an effort to save money, sacrificing quality representation that the litigant might otherwise be able to afford. We have also heard the argument that by offering too much assistance to self-represented litigants, the courts themselves are undermining the value of lawyers and the legal profession. Apparently, some are concerned that the court system will become so user-friendly that there will be no need for lawyers.
We respectfully disagree. Litigants who can afford the services of a lawyer will continue to use one until a case or problem is resolved. Lawyers make a difference and clients know that. But for those whose only option is to go it alone, at least some limited, affordable time with a lawyer is a valuable option we should all encourage.
In fact, we believe that limited-scope-representation rules will allow lawyers — especially sole practitioners — to service people who might otherwise have never sought legal assistance. We also believe that carefully drafted ethical rules allowing lawyers to handle part of a case give the legal profession an opportunity to help the courts address the ever-growing number of litigants who cross our thresholds. This cause has special relevance now as state courts are faced with serious cutbacks in financing, forcing some to close their doors one day a week or a month, lay off front-line staff members and delay jury trials. None of this bodes well for the judicial system or for those seeking to vindicate their rights through the courts, whether they have a lawyer or not.
We need members of the legal profession to join with us, as many have done, in meeting this challenge by making unbundled legal services and other innovative solutions — like self-help Web sites, online assistance programs and court self-help centers — work for all who need them. If we are to maintain public trust and confidence in the courts, we must keep faith with our founding principles and our core belief in equal justice under the law.
John T. Broderick Jr. is the chief justice of New Hampshire. Ronald M. George is the chief justice of California.
CASE DISMISSED BY THE QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT OF NY
New York Supreme Court- Queens County Residential Funding Corp lost the foreclosure case it filed #19751/08. The Hon. Marguerite A Grays states in relevant part of the Order: “Although plaintiff has submitted a copy of the assignment of the mortgage, and alleges that it is the holder of the underlying note, it has failed to demonstrate that the note was assigned, endorsed, or has an allonge firmly affixed to it to effectuate its assignment. Plaintiff has thus failed to establish that it has standing to bring this action (see Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45 [1867]; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [1998]… (CPLR 3211[a][3]) Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied and plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed”
There is an attorney in New York who will fight for you if you are in foreclosure call him: Farrel Donald Esq. 347-278-2509 or send him an email at lawfrd@gmail.com
Emmanuel
CAUSES OF ACTION
# 1 WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL
Unethical and Deceptive practices employing delays with enforcing the Beneficiaries rights!
Obvious avoidance is evident from long delays where the rights of the parties are seen to benefit one over the other by employing timing. Borrowers allowed to miss six or more payments due lender remain hopeful under an implied understanding.
Avoidance turns to acceleration and surprise borrowers at the time of sale (of their property) and entitles Counsel to establish a claim of bad faith business practices.
I don’t need to go to law school to tell you the who, what, when, where and why for determining “bad faith” business practices. Read the courts comments and see for yourself why judges scoff and won’t let stand the claims of typos and sad faith business practices.
Where good faith is circumvented, a legal practitioner must should evidence the point in time any delays by a lender imply forbearance and the offer will outweigh the immediate benefits for enforcing ones rights.
One concern is where the alleged security holder establishes a condition precedent for a more favorable subsequent outcome brought in part by unfair timing. Not by any means a coincidence with third party shared opportunities and delays required for satisfaction for lender claims by counter parties.
The timing of foreclosure can often occur after a prolonged lender absence.
YOU ALWAYS TALLWAYS ENFORCE YOUR RIGHT AS AN OBLIGATION UNDER A BLUE SKY OR SHELVE. That versus resume your rights in a foreclosure sale.
Here we look at a condition subsequent to emerge as more favorable to a condition precedent.
Secretary of the Treasury commences with the enforcement of the Economic Assets Recovery Act which mandates a favorable approach towards endorsement of the pretender lender in a recovery.
Recovery delays last year suddenly accelerated with passage of pro lender legislation creating obstacles for a legal right to counsel and for fees earned for affirmative defenses in California.
WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL cause a lost note to the parties to become of greater consequence when it reappears late in the game. Lost is something misunderstood to a layperson and unemployed clients who emerge as an “expert witness”.
The time delays and lost note become more compelling to a practitioner. The note becomes lost while the recording of assignment evidencing a lawful transfer establishes a breach according to the indenture.
The assignment must record for valuable consideration and it does not – till time of a proposed reversion or trustee sale.
The delayed sales we see are not a trustee or sheriff’s sale conveyance but a credit bid from an amount outstanding due by the obligor for lines of credit in default. Now I am convinced (as I was in 2007) it’s the FDIC that mandates this lender bad boy effort to steal a meal and home.
YOUR FORECLOSURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A BORROWERS OBLIGATION ( rather the obligees debt to the government) UNDER FAS 140 AND PERMIT A HOME TO BE STOLEN IN FORCLOSURE.
Aside from the fact the beneficial interest is not misplaced or destroyed is the reality supporting the timeliness of filing which lender use to benefit their interest lost to the seller by timing the recovery?
DELAYS ARE CALCULATED FOR PREFERENTIAL JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION AND BRING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LENDER ITS UNINTELIGIABLE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE RIGHTS OF THE ORGINAL ASSET.
This deceptive and clandestine method work solely in coordination with other interested parties.
As for delays, the lack of action is saying one thing but does another,” intending to gain advantage of timing and favor of the court. Plaintiff should be held by to what was first said or expressed as a remedy enforceable by law.
M.Soliman
Expert.Witness
Mail to: Expert.Witness @live.com
U.S. LOAN EFFORT IS SEEN AS ADDING TO HOUSING WOES
By PETER S. GOODMAN
Published: January 1, 2010 A.D.
The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.
Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.
As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences [OR HIRING ATTORNEYS WHO ‘GET IT’ (see below)]. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.
Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.
“The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”
Mr. Katari contends that BANKS HAVE BEEN USING TEMPORARY LOAN MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE OBAMA PLAN AS JUSTIFICATION TO AVOID AN HONEST ACCOUNTING OF THE MORTGAGE LOSSES STILL ON THEIR BOOKS. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.
“Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”
The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.
But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out.
In late November, with scant public disclosure, the Treasury Department started the FORECLOSURE ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM, [thanks Lisa E for bringing this unheralded program to our attention] through which it will encourage arrangements that result in distressed borrowers surrendering their homes. The program will pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow homeowners to sell properties for less than they owe on their mortgages — short sales, in real estate parlance. The government will also pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow delinquent borrowers to hand over their deeds in lieu of foreclosing.
Ms. Reilly, the Treasury spokeswoman, said the foreclosure alternatives program did not represent a new policy. “We have said from the start that modifications will not be the solution for all homeowners and will not solve the housing crisis alone,” Ms. Reilly said by e-mail. “This has always been a multi-pronged effort.”
Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.
In 2008, more than 1.7 million homes were “lost” through foreclosures, short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. Last year, more than two million homes were lost, and Economy.com expects that this year’s number will swell to 2.4 million.
“I don’t think there’s any way for Treasury to tweak their plan, or to cajole, pressure or entice servicers to do more to address the crisis,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass.”
Mr. Zandi argues that THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDS A NEW INITIATIVE THAT ATTACKS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF FORECLOSURES: THE ROUGHLY 15 MILLION AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE UNDERWATER, meaning they owe the bank more than their home is worth.
Increasingly, such borrowers are inclined to walk away and accept foreclosure, rather than continuing to make payments on properties in which they own no equity. A paper by researchers at the Amherst Securities Group suggests that BEING UNDERWATER “is a far more important predictor of defaults than unemployment.”
From its inception, the Obama plan has drawn criticism for failing to compel banks to write down the size of outstanding mortgage balances, which would restore equity for underwater borrowers, giving them greater incentive to make payments. A vast majority of modifications merely decrease monthly payments by lowering the interest rate.
Mr. Zandi proposes that the Treasury Department push banks to write down some loan balances by reimbursing the companies for their losses. He pointedly REJECTS THE NOTION THAT GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND LET FORECLOSURES WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE MARKET, saying that course risks a surge of foreclosures and declining house prices that could pull the economy back into recession.
“We want to overwhelm this problem,” he said. “If we do go back into recession, it will be very difficult to get out.”
Under the current program, the government provides cash incentives to mortgage companies that lower monthly payments for borrowers facing hardships. The Treasury Department set a goal of three to four million permanent loan modifications by 2012.
“That’s overly optimistic at this stage,” said Richard H. Neiman, the superintendent of banks for New York State and an appointee to the Congressional Oversight Panel, a body created to keep tabs on taxpayer bailout funds. “There’s a great deal of frustration and disappointment.”
As of mid-December, some 759,000 homeowners had received loan modifications on a trial basis typically lasting three to five months. But only about 31,000 had received permanent modifications — a step that requires borrowers to make timely trial payments and submit paperwork verifying their financial situation.
The government has pressured mortgage companies to move faster. Still, it argues that trial modifications are themselves a considerable help.
“Almost three-quarters of a million Americans now are benefiting from modification programs that reduce their monthly payments dramatically, on average $550 a month,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said last month at a hearing before the Congressional Oversight Panel. “That is a meaningful amount of support.”
But mortgage experts and lawyers who represent borrowers facing foreclosure argue that recipients of trial loan modifications often wind up worse off.
In Lakeland, Fla., Jaimie S. Smith, 29, called her mortgage company, then Washington Mutual, in October 2008, when she realized she would get a smaller bonus from her employer, a furniture company, threatening her ability to continue the $1,250 monthly mortgage payments on her three-bedroom house.
In April, Chase, which had taken over Washington Mutual, lowered her payment to $1,033.62 in a trial that was supposed to last three months.
Ms. Smith made all three payments on time and submitted required documents, Chase confirms. She called the bank almost weekly to inquire about a permanent loan modification. Each time, she says, Chase told her to continue making trial payments and await word on a permanent modification.
Then, in October, a startling legal notice arrived in the mail: CHASE HAD FORECLOSED ON HER HOUSE AND SOLD IT AT AUCTION FOR $100. (The purchaser? Chase.)
“I cried,” she said. “I was hysterical. I bawled my eyes out.”
Later that week came another letter from Chase: “Congratulations on qualifying for a Making Home Affordable loan modification!”
When Ms. Smith frantically called the bank to try to overturn the sale, she was told that the house was no longer hers. Chase would not tell her how long she could remain there, she says. She feared the sheriff would show up at her door with eviction papers, or that she would return home to find her belongings piled on the curb. So Ms. Smith anxiously set about looking for a new place to live.
She had been planning to continue an online graduate school program in supply chain management, and she had about $4,000 in borrowed funds to pay tuition. She scrapped her studies and used the money to pay the security deposit and first month’s rent on an apartment.
Later, SHE HIRED A LAWYER, who is seeking compensation from Chase. A judge later vacated the sale. Chase is still offering to make her loan modification permanent, but Ms. Smith has already moved out and is conflicted about what to do.
“I could have just walked away,” said Ms. Smith. “If they had said, ‘We can’t work with you,’ I’d have said: ‘What are my options? Short sale?’ None of this would have happened. God knows, I never would have wanted to go through this. I’d still be in grad school. I would not have paid all that money to them. I could have saved that money.”
A Chase spokeswoman, Christine Holevas, confirmed that the bank mistakenly foreclosed on Ms. Smith’s house and sold it at the same time it was extending the loan modification offer.
“There was a systems glitch,” Ms. Holevas said. “We are sorry that an error happened. We’re trying very hard to do what we can to keep folks in their homes. We are dealing with many, many individuals.”
Many borrowers complain they were told by mortgage companies their credit would not be damaged by accepting a loan modification, only to discover otherwise.
In a telephone conference with reporters, Jack Schakett, Bank of America’s credit loss mitigation executive, confirmed that even borrowers who were current before agreeing to loan modifications and who then made timely payments were reported to credit rating agencies as making only partial payments.
The biggest source of concern remains the growing numbers of underwater borrowers — now about one-third of all American homeowners with mortgages, according to Economy.com. The Obama administration clearly grasped the threat as it created its program, yet opted not to focus on writing down loan balances.
“THIS IS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE WE MADE, NOT TO START WITH A PRINCIPAL REDUCTION,” Mr. Geithner told the Congressional Oversight Panel. “We thought it would be dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer, harder to justify, CREATE MUCH GREATER RISK OF UNFAIRNESS.”
Mr. Geithner’s explanation did not satisfy the panel’s chairwoman, ELIZABETH WARREN.
“Are we creating a program in which we’re talking about potentially spending $75 billion to try to modify people into mortgages that will reduce the number of foreclosures in the short term, but just kick the can down the road?” she asked, raising the prospect “that we’ll be looking at an economy with elevated mortgage foreclosures not just for a year or two, but for many years. How do you deal with that problem, Mr. Secretary?”
A good question, Mr. Geithner conceded.
“What to do about it,” he said. “That’s a hard thing.”
A version of this article appeared in print on January 2, 2010, A.D. on page A1 of the New York edition.
(c) NYT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are foreclosed properties worth AFTER they’re sold on the court house steps (or now in Miami ONLINE)? What are they worth after they are gutted and turned into debris, a blight on neighborhoods? Why then are principal reductions such anathema?
TRUE STORY: If every homeowner were a corporation, principal reductions would be no problem for the banks. There’d be little they could do. I attended an auction where my landlord (one of the biggest in Boston) had bought a Cambridge industrial property years earlier which at its peak was valued at $3 million. When the market tanked (boom/bust cycles are common in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), he defaulted, it went to auction, he created a new corporation and was the sole bidder at $400,000!
As an aside, this landlord was no slouch. He was wired. He mostly rented to lawyers, and spread his legal work around to all the major law firms, so when one approached a lawyer or law firm to sue him, guess what? When one filed criminal complaints against him, and these never got investigated or prosecuted, one could understand why he was such a heavy contributor to the campaigns of district attorneys and attorneys general. When one called the local police because his henchmen were breaking in and making off with one’s valuable property, the police could not be bothered, nor their supervisors. He hired many police details and paid them well to ignore the wholesale sale of drugs in entertainment venues he owned, so they weren’t about to bite the hand that fed them. One would be hard pressed to find a case decided against him in courts where he controlled both judges and their clerks in several states.
To cap it off he owned a country club I visited. The parking lot was filled during weekday working hours with dozens of vehicles bearing municipal plates. How could so many building inspectors have been on hand all at the same time to inspect this vast country club? Ah, what some government (even judges and their clerks) or municipal employees will do to enjoy free membership, drinks, food and golf!
Here’s hoping your community, your state are not so brazenly corrupt, that your officials and judges are so open to outside influence. Why does Secretary Geithner continue to do the banks’ bidding when the solution has been demonstrated to lie elsewhere?
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Hi,
Let me add one more thing, The NOD recorded on 06/03/08, Old Republic as Trustee. They were not
executed as trustee until July 15th, 2008 and were
not effected (recorded) until 01/08/09. Placer Title
was trustee of record at the time. Old Republic filed
the NOD 42 days before they were in the capacity to
do so. More to that as we mailed a QWR to the original
lender NC, The indenture trustee DB, The servicer
who purchased the rights from NC in bankruptcy
Carrington, The letter to the closing claiming their
stake Banker’s Trust, and all the other defendants
and does. rescinding the loan before sale. NC
said Carringtonowned the note, Carrington said DB,
owned the note, but respectfully declined to accept
the rescission (not timely) DB never said a thing, we
only heard from them for the foreclosure and UD.
Attorney of record for Deutsche Bank who purports
their ownership decared Carrington as the NEW
OWNER when he mailed the 3/60 day notice to quit,
at that time he was attorney for the other owner
one attempted mortgage assignment out of all these
owners.
Thanks again sherri
Sherri Hill, on January 1st, 2010 at 7:05 pm Said:
Hi Everyone,
Can anyone point me in the direction of where to
find fictitious business registration publications for the
(theif) National Banks, and do they have to file a statement of compliance when they file for a UD?
This would be Deutsche Bank National Tust Company
Indenture Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan
Trust Series 2006-2. And since we have newly discovered evidence, can we still file an emergency motion to vacate on the grounds of fraud, fraud upon the court by an adverse attorney, who also maintains Fast Eviction Services and is on probation with the state bar, (I’m sure you can probably guess the type of case) and forgery of the assignment since we have uncovered Hazelle Weissinger who assigned the mortgage as VP for NC and on the same day also signed a substitution of trustee as VP for DB. Hazelle is VP of Old Republic Default Management, the substituted trustee that conducted the foreclosure.
Thats one better than Judge Schack, !! We have already filed one motion to vacate but did not know these facts at that time. Anybody,?? can Iwe do another motion? We already have an unlimited filed for nine causes of action, but were only at case management stage. DB did a credit bid of 90,000 less than owed. The judge is one that don’t get it or gets more than we know! Your guess is as good as mine, he does have the court file in front of him every hearing, he won’t hear our side and pretty much don’t give a damn what DB does. ?? POS forged, New REO managers for DB have emerged, only the fabricated new reo manager is employed by DB’ s attorney, process server who purportedly served the summons and complaint is not a PS and the declaration of due diligence stated he attempted service 3 times in three days and is about 7 or 8 hours away from me. For $60.00 he stayed here three days to serve a person not of our nationality and well known in the 23 years of living there ,on a street that contains six houses, not much happens here without everyone knowing, and this bullshit declaration was not signed. Under penalty of perjury I declare, NO, wait a minute I don’t guess I do. [$*_?#”!(^% (and more of that to them). Were mad as hell living in a motel just a few blocks away where our house that sits empty.
Thanks Sherri
to complicate matters more or not—that Huxtable-Agnew case against Geithner, can be pulled from PACER and if one uses RECAP (on mozilla), the case goes into a type of public domain database for anyone to view for free. I also believe, but have not confirmed, that the Google Scholar Legal goes and find these public domain cases.
Anyone who wants to totally stay on top of any federal case across the USA can sign up for a PACER account and search away. There are some fees involved, but they are minor.
One would also think that because we are all paying taxes, which in turn pay for judges’s salaries (federal) etc. that we would be able to view everything in PACER for free.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
IN 2009 MAIN STREET GOT THE SHAFT
[NPR] Commentator ROBERT REICH says this past year will be remembered as a time when Wall Street fat cats who caused the financial collapse got fatter, while the rest of America got the scraps.
Robert Reich
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
KAI RYSSDAL: The past 364 days have been, when you stop to think about it, quite a year. But if 2008 will be remembered as the year of Lehman Brothers and TARP and too big to fail, what will 2009 leave to the history books?
Commentator Robert Reich offers this suggestion.
ROBERT REICH: 2009 will be remembered as the year Wall Street came back and Main Street got shafted. It started with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out Wall Street’s big banks — and much of that money, according to the TARP inspector general’s recent report, will never be paid back.
It ended with those banks enjoying record profits and about to dole out some $20 to $30 billion dollars in bonuses, while Main Street’s small businesses can’t get loans, and a record number of Americans have lost — or are in imminent danger of losing — their jobs, and homes and savings.
At the start of the year, Wall Street’s biggest banks were said to be too big to fail. By the end of this year, they were even bigger. And they knew for sure they wouldn’t be allowed to fail if their bets turned bad. Which meant the bets could be even riskier than before.
IT WAS THE YEAR WHEN THE POLITICAL POWER OF WALL STREET MONEY BECAME CLEARER THAN EVER — in the form of generous contributions to both parties and platoons of lobbyists blocking reform. Even though Wall Street’s recklessness caused the mess in the first place, the year ended without any congressional agreement on how to prevent it from happening again. Not even a modest proposal to better protect small borrowers and small investors from fraud.
The President called them “fat cats” and Congress thundered at them. But Washington did not plan to tax their upcoming bonuses, which they would not have earned without the bailout. Nor did Washington even attempt to claw back billions of taxpayer dollars quietly passed through AIG to counterparties like Goldman Sachs.
Nothing was said in official Washington about resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act that had once separated investment from commercial banking. No mention was made of applying the antitrust laws to break up the giant banks. Nothing came of allowing struggling homeowners to use bankruptcy to renegotiate their mortgages.
2009 was the year when Washington called the bankers fat cats but let them grow even fatter, while the rest of America got the scraps.
RYSSDAL: Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This Christmas I received a treasure, a signed copy of Robert Reich’s LOCKED IN THE CABINET and recalled voting for him for Governor of Massachusetts, though his prospects were, like his stature, short – then years later a delightful dinner with him, and most recently an exchange of correspondence about the subprime mortgage meltdown where I found him right on in his take on so much of what is happening in America and American politics. Check out his commentaries also on health reform and the public option. So it’s no surprise to hear him again call the year for what it was. IN 2009 WE GOT SHAFTED.
Did our Founding Fathers ever envision that we’d turn into a plutocracy, or worse, a plutarchy and that, from these, lobbyists would have more say and influence than WE THE PEOPLE? How did it get so out of balance? How did we lose our voice, our means of redress? Why do we not have consensus on this erosion of power of the populace? Who sows the seeds of discord to keep us from forming a united front? How complacent have we become? How was this complacency engineered? To borrow from Noam Chomsky, how was consent manufactured?
I shudder that we as a nation of working people are becoming like those industrial corporate farms where cows are locked in narrow stalls, hooked up to milking machines and exploited until they drop. Collectively, to Wall Street, we are but a revenue stream.
At MIT, from where many bright graduates went on to invent exotic derivatives for Wall Street, another truth-to-power speaking voice such as Robert Reich’s is found in the person of linguistics professor NOAM CHOMSKY. Forty years ago, Independence Day 1969, I heard Chomsky speak where George Washington gathered his troops on Cambridge’s Commons, and decided then and there to move to Cambridge.
If you want to hear how we have gotten into our present fix, how consent has been manufactured, and that we as a people are in the best position ever to turn this imbalance around through grassroots organizing, follow Chomsky at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#docid=676452061991429040
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Oops sorry but this part got left out:
You allege that I was trying to sell you something whereas apparently you do all this for free. I assume you are referring to a single link to the audit website placed within the email you received. This is no different than a sponsorship link that may appear on any e-mail or website.
Indeed you have Google ads allover your scribd page which I assume are there to generate revenue for you. So you are not doing this purely out of the goodness of heart. You are selling something too.
Niel also sells seminars on this site, but that doesn’t mean you can copy material and post it on your own site without attribution, with the lame excuse that since Niel is selling seminars here, it is kosher for you to deny him the common courtesy of acknowledging his efforts to educate us.
When I spend hours every day searching for case law that may help people and then bring the information to your attention, the least you can do is acknowledge me when you copy and use the exact same material on a commercial site that generates ad revenue for you.
Okay. Now I am done.
MA
4closureFraud,
I don’t want to turn this in to an argument but I must respond to your comments.
As far as the information being public, I never called you a thief. I questioned your etiquette because regardless of where the information may have come from, when you copy a post including the poster’s short commentary, you are expected to give proper credit as many others have done who linked to my post. That is just good manners.
As far as you ONLY wanting to help people by spreading the word and sharing information, I wonder why you don’t allow anyone downloading the material on your scribd page (so they can in turn share it with more people), and why you inscribe them with your own logo. After all, if it is public knowledge, why would you want to lock it up so people would have to come back to your site to read it?
As far as endorsing my company, who ever asked you for an endorsement? We are talking about copying material and NOT giving the proper attribution. That is all. Nothing more.
By the way, I had made changes to the content, which is why I know where your copy had come from and the short commentary was obviously not in the public domain.
Once again, I don’t want to get in to a pissing match, so let’s drop it and move on.
Mortgage Auditor,
First let me say I did not mean to offend you by not linking to your site.
There are a few reasons why I did not.
1. The information on the case was sent to me and others via an unsolicited email promoting loan audits by your company.
2. The information in question is public record is it not?
3. I have no information on your company so I can not endorse it.
What I do is share information with as many people as possible without trying to sell them something. My Scribd site is getting over 20,000 hits a month so I uploaded the public record of the case file, that you emailed to me, with the thought that it might just help someone facing foreclosure.
Isnt that what is all about? Sharing the knowledge?
Feel free to copy any content or public record off my site if you feel it could help others.
Respectfully,
4closureFraud
Deontos,
I know you were totally innocent, but “someone” copied my blog post and published it on his own scribd page without proper attribution. As you were kind enough to demonstrate, it is very easy to give proper credit to the person who originally posted the information, regardless of where the information had come from to begin with.
It is bad etiquette to copy content without attribution, as we all know.
I am glad you find the blog helpful.
Mortgage Auditor,
Thank you for the “correction”. I do follow your
“Foreclosure Combatant” Blog on my iGoogle
Page and I find it very instructive.
Foreclosure Fraud has constructed a “Twitter Feed”
that some how does a “real time” scour of the entire
internet for information relevant to our common cause.
It is also a good resource. YOUR post incidentally
got vacuumed into his feed and I just happened to
see it there first.
Attribution AFFIRMED and case advisory is APPRECIATED.
But please give me MORE. More, more! Your site is like
a law school class for me. I mean with that compendium
of case files.
This was originally posted on my blog last night, so proper attribution is only appropriate and always appreciated.
http://loanaudit.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/lynne-huxtable-and-jeffrey-agnew-v-timothy-f-geithner-et-al/
From Foreclosure Fraud: Let the Legal Reality Show BEGIN
California lawsuit claiming denial of 5th Amendment DUE PROCESS due to loan modification denial under HAMP Program.
Defendants(Loan Servicer and TIM GEITHNER) “Motion to Dismiss”
DENIED.
Looks interesting to me:
A Pendency was granted to Plaintiffs.
So no foreclosure until case decided
Clearly if the Pretenders LOSE this
and are FORCED to grant Loan Mods?
That’s going to BLOW UP the CDS/CDO
business model.
There also maybe some unhappiness in
the Senior Tranches of some of those
wonderful securitized loan pools.
——————————————————–
X_http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/lender%E2%80%99s-refusal-to-modify-loan-may-have-violated-borrowers%E2%80%99-fifth-amendment-right-of-due-process/
LYNNE HUXTABLE and JEFFREY A. AGNEW, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY F.
GEITHNER, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 09cv1846 BTM(NLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
December 23, 2009, Decided
December 23, 2009, Filed
CORE TERMS: lender, public function, joint action, mortgage, factual allegations, private entities, modification, state action, state actors, quotations, guaranty, notice, home mortgage, mortgage loan, mere fact, federal program, summary judgment, fully developed, fact-bound, foreclosed, defaulted, federally, veteran’s, nexus, government officials, discovery, recorded
COUNSEL: [*1] For Lynne Huxtable, Jeffrey A Agnew, Plaintiffs: Jeffrey Alan Agnew,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeffrey A Agnew, Attorney at Law, Ramona, CA.
For Timothy F. Geithner, as United States Secretary of the Treasury, United States
Department of the Treasury, Defendants: Thomas C Stahl, LEAD ATTORNEY, U S
Attorneys Office Southern District of California, San Diego, CA.
For The Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for the Federal National
Mortgage Association and for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, doing
business as Freddie Mac, doing business as Fannie Mae, Defendant: Christopher S
Tarbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
For National City Corporation, a Delaware corporation, PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc, a Pennsylvania corporation, National City Mortgage, a division of National City
Bank, National City Bank, a nationally chartered bank, Defendants: Cathy Lynn Granger,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Irvine, CA.
For Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, a California corporation, Defendant:
Thomas N Abbott, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pite Duncan LLP, San Diego, CA.
JUDGES: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: Barry Ted Moskowitz
OPINION
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
On [*2] September 21, 2009, Defendants National City Bank and PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for
failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Complaint arises out of non-judicial foreclosure proceedings related to their
home in Ramona, California. The following are factual allegations in the Complaint and
are not the Court’s findings.
Plaintiffs defaulted on their home mortgage in November 2007. (Compl. P 26.) In
February 2008, a notice of default was recorded and served. (Compl. P 27.) And in
December 2008, a notice of sale was recorded and served, setting a date for the public
auction of Plaintiffs’ home. (Compl. P 29.) Pursuant to a joint motion, the Court has
enjoined the sale of Plaintiffs’ home during the pendency of this action. (September 29,
2009 Order, Doc. 25.)
Plaintiffs allege that they are eligible for a loan modification under the Home Affordable
Modification Program (“HAMP”). (Compl. P 95.) HAMP is a federally funded program
that allows mortgagors to refinance their mortgages and reduce their monthly payments.
(Compl. P 66.) Despite their eligibility for HAMP, [*3] the loan servicer, Defendant
National City Mortgage Company, twice denied their application for a loan modification.
(Compl. PP 90, 93.) Plaintiffs did not receive a reason for the denial or an opportunity to
appeal. (Compl. P 100.)
Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains two counts. Both are for violation of due process under the
Fifth Amendment for failing to create rules implementing HAMP that comport with due
process. (Compl. PP 114-27.)
Defendants National City Bank and PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. have moved to
dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead that they are
state actors.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the plaintiff is required only to set forth a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and
“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d
929 (2007). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in
plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995).
[*4] But only factual allegations must be accepted as true–not legal conclusions. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the factual allegations “must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Furthermore, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion
to dismiss.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants have violated their Fifth Amendment procedural
due process rights. The Fifth Amendment, however, only applies to governmental actions,
Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008), and the Moving Defendants
are private entities. Therefore, the Moving Defendants argue, the Complaint fails to state
a claim against them.
But in some circumstances the Fifth Amendment does apply to private entities. “In order
to apply the proscriptions of the Fifth Amendment to private actors, there must exist a
sufficiently close nexus between the (government) and the challenged action of the . [*5]
. . (private) entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the
(government) itself.” Rank v. Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal
quotations omitted). There are four different tests used to determine whether private
action can be attributed to the state: “(1) public function; (2) joint action; (3)
governmental compulsion or coercion; and (4) governmental nexus. Satisfaction of any
one test is sufficient to find state action, so long as no countervailing factor exists.”
Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003). The application of these tests is a
“necessarily fact-bound inquiry.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 939,
102 S. Ct. 2744, 73 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1982).
Plaintiffs argue that two tests apply here: public function and joint action.
1. Public Function
“Under the public function test, when private individuals or groups are endowed by the
State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or
instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional limitations. The public
function test is satisfied only on a showing that the function at issue is both traditionally
and exclusively governmental.” Kirtley, 326 F.3d at 1093 [*6] (internal quotations and
citations omitted). Mortgage loan servicing is neither traditionally nor exclusively
governmental, and Plaintiffs cannot show government action under this test.
2. Joint Action
Under the joint action test, the Court considers “whether the state has so far insinuated
itself into a position of interdependence with the private entity that it must be recognized
as a joint participant in the challenged activity. This occurs when the state knowingly
accepts the benefits derived from unconstitutional behavior.” Kirtley, 326 F.3d at 1093
(internal quotations omitted). “A private party is liable under this theory, however, only if
its particular actions are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with those of the government.”
Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura County, 294 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). “The
mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not itself convert its action
into that of the State . . . . Nor does the fact that the regulation is extensive and detailed . .
. .” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350, 95 S. Ct. 449, 42 L. Ed. 2d
477 (addressing equivalent provision in Fourteenth Amendment).
The Court does not have sufficient facts before it to determine whether [*7] state action
exists here. As the Supreme Court has stated, this is a “necessarily fact-bound inquiry.”
Lugar, 457 U.S. at 939. Although the mere fact that a business is subject to extensive
regulation is not sufficient to find joint action, here there may be more than just extensive
regulation. Plaintiffs have pled that the HAMP program imposes affirmative duties on
lenders, like the Moving Defendants, who participate in the program. If an applicant
meets certain federally created criteria, then the lender has no discretion and must grant a
loan modification. The federal program is completely administered by the Moving
Defendants, and they are essentially acting as the government’s agents in executing
HAMP. Making all reasonable inference in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court find that Plaintiff
has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Of course, facts developed through discovery may ultimately show that Plaintiff cannot
establish state action. But at this stage in the litigation, the Court does not have the
answers to several relevant issues, including (1) whether government officials were
involved in the decision to deny Plaintiff’s request; (2) whether government officials
[*8] provide guidance to the Moving Defendants regarding the administration of HAMP;
(3) the extent of ongoing communication between the government and the Moving
Defendants regarding HAMP; (4) and the financial arrangements between the
government and the Moving Defendants regarding HAMP. This is not an exhaustive list
and the course of discovery may yield other relevant facts not listed here.
Defendant’s best case–which it does not cite–in support of its motion to dismiss is Rank
v. Nimmo, 677 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1982). In Nimmo, the Ninth Circuit held that a private
mortgage lender who foreclosed on a plaintiff’s property was not a state actor. The
plaintiff had obtained a mortgage loan through the VA Home Mortgage Guarantee
Program, which was a federal program that guaranteed a portion of a qualifying veteran’s
mortgage, enabling veterans to obtain mortgage loans without a substantial down
payment. 677 F.2d at 693-94. A private commercial lender made a loan to the plaintiff
under the program. Id. at 693. When the plaintiff defaulted, the lender foreclosed on the
plaintiff’s property. Id. at 695-96. The Plaintiff sued the lender for depriving him of his
entitlement to a federal-home-loan [*9] program without affording him due process
under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 696. The Ninth Circuit held that even though the
private lender was subject to extensive federal regulation under the federal home loan
guaranty program, the private lender was not a state actor. Id. at 702.
This case is different from Nimmo for at least two reasons. First, and most importantly,
the Ninth Circuit decided Nimmo on cross motions for summary judgment and had the
benefit of a more fully developed factual record. And second, the guaranty program at
issue in Nimmo was very different from HAMP. Under the guaranty program, private
lenders applied to the government for participation in the program and the government
could deny their participation if the private lender failed to meet certain criteria. 677 F.2d
692, 694. But in this case, Plaintiffs contend that the government required private lenders
to participate if they have received federal money, and the private lenders must
administer HAMP on the government’s behalf. Whether this is correct or not is not an
issue that can be determined on the record before the Court.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. [*10] 21.)
The Moving Defendants may raise their argument again on a motion for summary
judgment once the record has been more fully developed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 23, 2009
/s/ Barry Ted Moskowitz
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
BANKS BUNDLED BAD DEBT, BET AGAINST IT, AND WON
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and LOUISE STORY
Published: December 23, 2009
In late October 2007, as the financial markets were starting to come unglued, a Goldman Sachs trader, Jonathan M. Egol, received very good news. At 37, he was named a managing director at the firm.
One former Goldman salesman wrote a novel about the crisis. A Deutsche Bank trader passed out T-shirts for investors hoping to profit on a housing bust.
[PICTURE] Lewis Sachs, left, who oversaw C.D.O.’s before becoming a Treasury adviser, and John Paulson, whose company profited as the housing market collapsed.
Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.
Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.
Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.
Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.
While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.
One focus of the inquiry is whether the firms creating the securities purposely helped to select especially risky mortgage-linked assets that would be most likely to crater, setting their clients up to lose billions of dollars if the housing market imploded.
Some securities packaged by Goldman and Tricadia ended up being so vulnerable that they soured within months of being created.
Goldman and other Wall Street firms maintain there is nothing improper about synthetic C.D.O.’s, saying that they typically employ many trading techniques to hedge investments and protect against losses. They add that many prudent investors often do the same. Goldman used these securities initially to offset any potential losses stemming from its positive bets on mortgage securities.
But Goldman and other firms eventually used the C.D.O.’s to place unusually large negative bets that were not mainly for hedging purposes, and investors and industry experts say that put the firms at odds with their own clients’ interests.
“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”
Investment banks were not alone in reaping rich rewards by placing trades against synthetic C.D.O.’s. Some hedge funds also benefited, including Paulson & Company, according to former Goldman workers and people at other banks familiar with that firm’s trading.
Michael DuVally, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, declined to make Mr. Egol available for comment. But Mr. DuVally said many of the C.D.O.’s created by Wall Street were made to satisfy client demand for such products, which the clients thought would produce profits because they had an optimistic view of the housing market. In addition, he said that clients knew Goldman might be betting against mortgages linked to the securities, and that the buyers of synthetic mortgage C.D.O.’s were large, sophisticated investors, he said.
The creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against. Some $8 billion in these securities remain on the books at American International Group, the giant insurer rescued by the government in September 2008.
From 2005 through 2007, at least $108 billion in these securities was issued, according to Dealogic, a financial data firm. And the actual volume was much higher because synthetic C.D.O.’s and other customized trades are unregulated and often not reported to any financial exchange or market.
Goldman Saw It Coming
Before the financial crisis, many investors — large American and European banks, pension funds, insurance companies and even some hedge funds — failed to recognize that overextended borrowers would default on their mortgages, and they kept increasing their investments in mortgage-related securities. As the mortgage market collapsed, they suffered steep losses.
A handful of investors and Wall Street traders, however, anticipated the crisis. In 2006, Wall Street had introduced a new index, called the ABX, that became a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities. The index allowed traders to bet on or against pools of mortgages with different risk characteristics, just as stock indexes enable traders to bet on whether the overall stock market, or technology stocks or bank stocks, will go up or down.
Goldman, among others on Wall Street, has said since the collapse that it made big money by using the ABX to bet against the housing market. Worried about a housing bubble, top Goldman executives decided in December 2006 to change the firm’s overall stance on the mortgage market, from positive to negative, though it did not disclose that publicly.
Even before then, however, pockets of the investment bank had also started using C.D.O.’s to place bets against mortgage securities, in some cases to hedge the firm’s mortgage investments, as protection against a fall in housing prices and an increase in defaults.
Mr. Egol was a prime mover behind these securities. Beginning in 2004, with housing prices soaring and the mortgage mania in full swing, Mr. Egol began creating the deals known as Abacus. From 2004 to 2008, Goldman issued 25 Abacus deals, according to Bloomberg, with a total value of $10.9 billion.
Abacus allowed investors to bet for or against the mortgage securities that were linked to the deal. The C.D.O.’s didn’t contain actual mortgages. Instead, they consisted of credit-default swaps, a type of insurance that pays out when a borrower defaults. These swaps made it much easier to place large bets on mortgage failures.
Rather than persuading his customers to make negative bets on Abacus, Mr. Egol kept most of these wagers for his firm, said five former Goldman employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. On occasion, he allowed some hedge funds to take some of the short trades.
Mr. Egol and Fabrice Tourre, a French trader at Goldman, were aggressive from the start in trying to make the assets in Abacus deals look better than they were, according to notes taken by a Wall Street investor during a phone call with Mr. Tourre and another Goldman employee in May 2005.
On the call, the two traders noted that they were trying to persuade analysts at Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating agency, to assign a higher rating to one part of an Abacus C.D.O. but were having trouble, according to the investor’s notes, which were provided by a colleague who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to release them. Goldman declined to discuss the selection of the assets in the C.D.O.’s, but a spokesman said investors could have rejected the C.D.O. if they did not like the assets.
Goldman’s bets against the performances of the Abacus C.D.O.’s were not worth much in 2005 and 2006, but they soared in value in 2007 and 2008 when the mortgage market collapsed. The trades gave Mr. Egol a higher profile at the bank, and he was among a group promoted to managing director on Oct. 24, 2007.
“Egol and Fabrice were way ahead of their time,” said one of the former Goldman workers. “They saw the writing on the wall in this market as early as 2005.” By creating the Abacus C.D.O.’s, they helped protect Goldman against losses that others would suffer.
As early as the summer of 2006, Goldman’s sales desk began marketing short bets using the ABX index to hedge funds like Paulson & Company, Magnetar and Soros Fund Management, which invests for the billionaire George Soros. John Paulson, the founder of Paulson & Company, also would later take some of the shorts from the Abacus deals, helping him profit when mortgage bonds collapsed. He declined to comment.
A Deal Gone Bad, for Some
The woeful performance of some C.D.O.’s issued by Goldman made them ideal for betting against. As of September 2007, for example, just five months after Goldman had sold a new Abacus C.D.O., the ratings on 84 percent of the mortgages underlying it had been downgraded, indicating growing concerns about borrowers’ ability to repay the loans, according to research from UBS, the big Swiss bank. Of more than 500 C.D.O.’s analyzed by UBS, only two were worse than the Abacus deal.
Goldman created other mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s that performed poorly, too. One, in October 2006, was a $800 million C.D.O. known as Hudson Mezzanine. It included credit insurance on mortgage and subprime mortgage bonds that were in the ABX index; Hudson buyers would make money if the housing market stayed healthy — but lose money if it collapsed. Goldman kept a significant amount of the financial bets against securities in Hudson, so it would profit if they failed, according to three of the former Goldman employees.
A Goldman salesman involved in Hudson said the deal was one of the earliest in which outside investors raised questions about Goldman’s incentives. “Here we are selling this, but we think the market is going the other way,” he said.
A hedge fund investor in Hudson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that because Goldman was betting against the deal, he wondered whether the bank built Hudson with “bonds they really think are going to get into trouble.”
Indeed, Hudson investors suffered large losses. In March 2008, just 18 months after Goldman created that C.D.O., so many borrowers had defaulted that holders of the security paid out about $310 million to Goldman and others who had bet against it, according to correspondence sent to Hudson investors.
The Goldman salesman said that C.D.O. buyers were not misled because they were advised that Goldman was placing large bets against the securities. “We were very open with all the risks that we thought we sold. When you’re facing a tidal wave of people who want to invest, it’s hard to stop them,” he said. The salesman added that investors could have placed bets against Abacus and similar C.D.O.’s if they had wanted to.
A Goldman spokesman said the firm’s negative bets didn’t keep it from suffering losses on its mortgage assets, taking $1.7 billion in write-downs on them in 2008; but he would not say how much the bank had since earned on its short positions, which former Goldman workers say will be far more lucrative over time. For instance, Goldman profited to the tune of $1.5 billion from one series of mortgage-related trades by Mr. Egol with Wall Street rival Morgan Stanley, which had to book a steep loss, according to people at both firms.
Tetsuya Ishikawa, a salesman on several Abacus and Hudson deals, left Goldman and later published a novel, “How I Caused the Credit Crunch.” In it, he wrote that bankers deserted their clients who had bought mortgage bonds when that market collapsed: “We had moved on to hurting others in our quest for self-preservation.” Mr. Ishikawa, who now works for another financial firm in London, declined to comment on his work at Goldman.
Profits From a Collapse
Just as synthetic C.D.O.’s began growing rapidly, some Wall Street banks pushed for technical modifications governing how they worked in ways that made it possible for C.D.O.’s to expand even faster, and also tilted the playing field in favor of banks and hedge funds that bet against C.D.O.’s, according to investors.
In early 2005, a group of prominent traders met at Deutsche Bank’s office in New York and drew up a new system, called Pay as You Go. This meant the insurance for those betting against mortgages would pay out more quickly. The traders then went to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the group that governs trading in derivatives like C.D.O.’s. The new system was presented as a fait accompli, and adopted.
Other changes also increased the likelihood that investors would suffer losses if the mortgage market tanked. Previously, investors took losses only in certain dire “credit events,” as when the mortgages associated with the C.D.O. defaulted or their issuers went bankrupt.
But the new rules meant that C.D.O. holders would have to make payments to short sellers under less onerous outcomes, or “triggers,” like a ratings downgrade on a bond. This meant that anyone who bet against a C.D.O. could collect on the bet more easily.
“In the early deals you see none of these triggers,” said one investor who asked for anonymity to preserve relationships. “These things were built in to provide the dealers with a big payoff when something bad happened.”
Banks also set up ever more complex deals that favored those betting against C.D.O.’s. Morgan Stanley established a series of C.D.O.’s named after United States presidents (Buchanan and Jackson) with an unusual feature: short-sellers could lock in very cheap bets against mortgages, even beyond the life of the mortgage bonds. It was akin to allowing someone paying a low insurance premium for coverage on one automobile to pay the same on another one even if premiums over all had increased because of high accident rates.
At Goldman, Mr. Egol structured some Abacus deals in a way that enabled those betting on a mortgage-market collapse to multiply the value of their bets, to as much as six or seven times the face value of those C.D.O.’s. When the mortgage market tumbled, this meant bigger profits for Goldman and other short sellers — and bigger losses for other investors.
Selling Bad Debt
Other Wall Street firms also created risky mortgage-related securities that they bet against.
At Deutsche Bank, the point man on betting against the mortgage market was Greg Lippmann, a trader. Mr. Lippmann made his pitch to select hedge fund clients, arguing they should short the mortgage market. He sometimes distributed a T-shirt that read “I’m Short Your House!!!” in black and red letters.
Deutsche, which declined to comment, at the same time was selling synthetic C.D.O.’s to its clients, and those deals created more short-selling opportunities for traders like Mr. Lippmann.
Among the most aggressive C.D.O. creators was Tricadia, a management company that was a unit of Mariner Investment Group. Until he became a senior adviser to the Treasury secretary early this year, Lewis Sachs was Mariner’s vice chairman. Mr. Sachs oversaw about 20 portfolios there, including Tricadia, and its documents also show that Mr. Sachs sat atop the firm’s C.D.O. management committee.
From 2003 to 2007, Tricadia issued 14 mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s, which it called TABS. Even when the market was starting to implode, Tricadia continued to create TABS deals in early 2007 to sell to investors. The deal documents referring to conflicts of interest stated that affiliates and clients of Tricadia might place bets against the types of securities in the TABS deal.
Even so, the sales material also boasted that the mortgages linked to C.D.O.’s had historically low default rates, citing a “recently completed” study by Standard & Poor’s ratings agency — though fine print indicated that the date of the study was September 2002, almost five years earlier.
At a financial symposium in New York in September 2006, Michael Barnes, the co-head of Tricadia, described how a hedge fund could put on a negative mortgage bet by shorting assets to C.D.O. investors, according to his presentation, which was reviewed by The New York Times.
Mr. Barnes declined to comment. James E. McKee, general counsel at Tricadia, said, “Tricadia has never shorted assets into the TABS deals, and Tricadia has always acted in the best interests of its clients and investors.”
Mr. Sachs, through a spokesman at the Treasury Department, declined to comment.
Like investors in some of Goldman’s Abacus deals, buyers of some TABS experienced heavy losses. By the end of 2007, UBS research showed that two TABS deals were the eighth- and ninth-worst performing C.D.O.’s. Both had been downgraded on at least 75 percent of their associated assets within a year of being issued.
Tricadia’s hedge fund did far better, earning roughly a 50 percent return in 2007 and similar profits in 2008, in part from the short bets.
A version of this article appeared in print on December 24, 2009, A.D. on page A1 of the New York edition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is something twisted and perverse that allows an entity to set something up that will fail, all the while leveraging bets through insurance, short sales, puts, credit default swaps, and their like that will net multiples in returns to the originator. We used to prosecute folks who manipulated or cornered markets, engaged in arson, or subverted banking. We used to prosecute those who traded on insider information (not available to the general public), and force them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. What happened?
Have we lost the political will to incarcerate wrongdoers when they are corporations? Did we learn nothing from Enron? China has a unique way of dealing with fraudsters who put profits and their narrow selfish interest above the general welfare, as we saw in the executions surrounding tainted milk.
Seems with the pendulum swinging wildly between laissez faire and regulation, we ought to put in fail-safe institutional structures that do not allow for tampering by special interests, or alternating administrations with little or no regard for the general welfare. That ought be bedrock in a capitalist democracy that wants to retain its primacy in a world that lists towards chaos and nihilism.
Will we ever climb out of the humongous hole we’ve dug ourselves into?
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
FROM: Foreclosure Industry website
X_http://www.foreclosureindustry.com/
CASE LAW DECISIONS DRAW A ROAD MAP
December 21, 2009 by christine
Last week I went to the Maricopa County Superior Court’s law library, which has free access to Westlaw. Westlaw is a service that provides case summaries within weeks of decisions. It’s expensive — most law firms have a subscription to the service, so having access to the service for free was a major score, although I did have to drive downtown and pay for parking.
I pulled up quite a few cases in both state (Arizona) and Federal and learned some interesting things.
Here’s my disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and this is not intended to be construed as legal advice. This is just my interpretation on the case summaries I read — if you have questions, do your own research or talk to an attorney.
As much as I’ve been talking about TILA and RESPA violations, it appears these claims, on their own, don’t win a case for the borrower. The judges, especially in Arizona, have specifically dismissed these arguments because they want the legislation to address the problems instead of judges legislating from the bench.
What seems to be working is for borrowers is to file a lawsuit in federal court alleging fraud — in other words, that the entire loan transaction was based on fraud.
TILA/RESPA, in my opinion, bolster the argument on fraud, but most of what I read indicates that the judges will likely dismiss these unless your lawyer really knows what he/she is doing.
Federal court judges consistently dismissed counts under TILA, RESPA, HOEPA, RICO, ECOA, but they usually did not dismiss claims of fraud. Interesting, eh?
It’s taken nearly a year of case law, but I think the courts have drawn a road map on how homeowners can prevail on the suits filed by homeowners against the banks.
I think if you’re going to pursue a predatory broker, state court might be the way to go, although an attorney I work with says that brokers’ bonds or insurance usually pays out claims to homeowners for predatory loans if the fact pattern is there.
So, as always, starting with a loan audit to get a clear picture of what’s going on with your loan. Without a loan audit, you don’t have a case.
Now that it’s becoming more clear how to proceed against the banks, I think the loan audit is even more important because it will tell you and your attorney how to proceed if you’ve been the victim of a bad loan.
If you’re a lawyer sitting on the sidelines ( I know there are a lot of you out there!) there is plenty of information out there on how to win these cases! Contact me if you need help defending homeowners!
summary judgment wins: failure to state a claim. HSBC as Trustee posted a formidable defense for Wells Fargo. Holder in due courts laws prevailed. Going to write a letter to the sheriff and ask him to inspect the foreclosure paperwork for faulty assignments after the original default date. I know this guy, he’ll listen. I just don;t know if he has the power to overrule a judge on a foreclosure case.
I filed enogh paperwork for plaintiff’s legal expenses to exceed $32,000. I would surmise that if I get a case allowed by a Bankruptcy Trustee, acknowledging the proof of claims, they’ll take a walk.
But One Never Knows, Do One?
Something fishy this way comes?
I recently found an “Assignment of Mortgage” (AOM) and “Satisfaction of Mortgage” in county records from MERS, both allegedly signed by employees of MERS. MERS has never been named as the ‘mortgagee’ and ‘noteholder’ on any of our documents, but only as a beneficiary the first time we refinanced in 2003. On its website under ‘Foreclosures’, even MERS admits:
“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.”
On the MERS AOM to WMC Mortgage, it states it is a COPY, is to be returned to WMC Mortgage, is missing the printed name under the alleged signature of a Witness, gives an address in Michigan yet is purported to be notarized in New York, is signed by an ‘Assistant Secretary whose name is handwritten on the document (not typed)’, is dated January 13, 2003 yet wasn’t recorded in county records until April 29, 2005.
On the the MERS ‘Satisfaction of Mortgage’ document, it states all of the following:
RECORDING REQUESTED BY / RETURN TO:
Peelle Management Corporation
P.O. Box 30014
Reno, NV 89520-9827
THIS CORPORATION HAS NO CORPORATE SEAL (not sure if this is referring to MERS or Peelle)
Purports to be notarized in Santa Clara County, California.
Prepared by: E. N. Harrison, Peelle Management Corporation, 4690 Longley Lane, Suite #8, Reno, NV 89502, LN # 1710195 Investor LN # 15924152 P.I.F.: 12/07/05
** Prepared by E. N. Harrison but he did not sign anywhere on the document.
I am telling you guys. . .These notices that are recorded are impossible to believe. Maybe its the subtle things I notice that others cant see.
For example, an instrument to be recorded should have the following:
1) a document date
2) a signature date
3) a notary date (If required)
How many time do I see a hand written date – no good. Or what about a rubber “stamp” for a third party agent. So MERS who is really an agent has an agent sign off something that show (by stamp) and agent. So tell me, are all these agents and a nominee lacking transparency. Are they really necessary to execute a recorded assignment. Please! (stamps do not work on a recorded instrument! ).
If anything appears fraudulent their is cause to protect the public , ask the court to acknowledge fraud against the county recorder and fraud against the court.
You should seek to have the court hear the matter under a claim that the deed is rendered defect subject to trial and their determine grounds for a rescission of the sale.
Where something is questioned on title or its transfer the title a transfer cannot occur without the likelihood of a cloud. Where the deed is proven to have transferred with a fraud the sale is rescinded and the deed considered defect.
In any case , the sale must fail and no conveyances are possible.
We had another large balance loan that went to sale unwind and rescind. Hey, even if I was stupid enough to commit fraud (as a trustee) I would never release my collateral subsequent to the sale and recovery! But they are! Now the next step is a slander of title claim, unfair business practices, fraud by a Trustee, slander of title , etc. In California I would move with the lawsuit and seek injunctive relief for conditions precedent and argue to remove from the lender the power of sale (I would claim is now lost to the trustee forever).
Baby steps…baby steps….
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
I am telling you guys. . .These notices that are recorded are impossible to believe. Maybe its the subtle things I notice that others cant see. For example, an instrument to be recorded should have the following:
1) a document date
2) a signature date
3) a notary date (If required)
How many time do I see a hand written date – no good. Or what about a rubber “stamp” for a third party agent. So MERS who is really an agent has an agent sign off something that show (by stamp) and agent. So tell me, are all these agents and a nominee lacking transparency. Are they really necessary to execute a recorded assignment. Please! (stamps do not work on a recorded instrument! ).
If anything appears fraudulent their is cause to protect the public , ask the court to acknowledge fraud against the county recorder and fraud against the court. You should seek to have the court hear the matter under a claim that the deed is rendered defect subject to trial and their determine grounds for a rescission of the sale.
Where something is questioned on title or its transfer the title a transfer cannot occur without the likelihood of a cloud. Where the deed is proven to have transferred with a fraud the sale is rescinded and the deed considered defect.
In any case , the sale must fail and no conveyances are possible.
We had another large balance loan that went to sale unwind and rescind. Hey, even if I was stupid enough to commit fraud (as a trustee) I would never release my collateral subsequent to the sale and recovery! But they are! Now the next step is a slander of title claim, unfair business practices, fraud by a Trustee, slander of title , etc. In California I would move with the lawsuit and seek injunctive relief for conditions precedent and argue to remove from the lender the power of sale (I would claim is now lost to the trustee forever).
Baby steps…baby steps….
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
UKG,
Sorry to hear that. I am likely going to have to consider
the BK option also.
Maybe later you can fill in why denied. Did the judge
give any explanation?
Order is entered. Motion denied. Gotta go, Judge! I’m gonna catch the BK Express! Thanks for nothing!
Submitted by M.Soliman
December 15th 2009
By Department of Justice
Mortgage Fraud and Home Foreclosures: Community Impacts and Collaborative Responses
As recent news reports have indicated and justice and community representatives have reported, the number of vacant and abandoned properties in communities across the U.S. has increased, and mortgage fraud and foreclosures are reported to play a key role in the issue. One estimate gives a conservative figure of $218 billion in losses in 2007 as a direct result of mortgage fraud on subprime loans.
Vacant and abandoned properties often become unsightly, diminish the property values of surrounding homes and communities, and invite disorder and criminal activity into these communities. Mitigating the effects of these problems, reducing the frequency of these occurrences, and restoring these properties to productive use can play a significant role in reducing and preventing neighborhood crime.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened a working group of representatives from communities in different regions of the country to examine crime as both a cause and result of foreclosures. A summary report from the working group is forthcoming.
Some of the major themes of the working group discussions were:
• The problems are continuing to grow.
• Collaboration is essential. Solutions to the problem reside across the spectrum of public and private crime suppression activities, from prevention to sentencing and from the community level to local, state, and federal agencies.
• National data can only provide broad information on the problem; local problem analysis provides better data for informing strategies and operations.
• The inadequacy of information sharing on licensing and sanctioning of practitioners in real estate, housing, and banking professions is an impediment to deterring repeat offenders.
• Success in recovering neighborhood safety and vibrancy depends on collaboration between law enforcement and ordinance enforcement, and between civil and criminal courts.
• State statutes and local ordinances need to be reexamined in light of the growing foreclosure problem.
• Interagency and interjurisdictional task forces are essential for preventing, investigating, and prosecuting mortgage fraud.
• A collaboration of government agencies, for profit corporations, and nonprofit agencies need to raise public awareness of the crime problems linked to foreclosures and the effect on the economy.
• Government executives need to be educated on the problems and solutions.
• Training is needed on identifying mortgage fraud and home foreclosure issues, as well as best practices for community groups, law enforcement, investigation, prosecution, and sentencing.
BJA would like to hear from local and state officials who have developed strategies and successful operations for addressing the growth of problem vacant properties or mortgage fraud.
Likewise, we want to hear from jurisdictions that are developing their strategies and would like more information.
Contact Information:
Paul Steiner, Senior Policy Advisor
Paul.Steiner@usdoj.gov
Roger;
You are also dead on. Damn it. . . This is awesome! Whats happening. Win, now go win!
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
—————————————————————————————————-Loan-busters, Debt Exterminators and Trust Deed-Detonators
Fight on!
MICHAEL said – “I now have deposition testimony and doucments proving that lenders are instructing asset managers and real estate brokers to literally break into peoples houses, change the locks, and scare them into leaving.”
————————————COMMENTS————————
Don’t know who this guy (COMMENTS) represents or where he came from ….and this is normally not my style, but . . .
BROTHER-
YOU ARE DEAD ON! GOT IT!
DEAD ON THE MONEY HERE
WOW
M.SOLIMAN
expert.witness@live.com
CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE 50 STATES
NCLC’s 50 State Report On UDAP (Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices) Statutes
Click on the hyperlink above to see in what states you as a consumer are afforded legal protection, and if any, to what extent.
The protection of consumers by statute and their actual enforcement is keenly tied to politics and special interests. No surprise, consumers take a back seat in largely pro-business states, where business regulation is not a priority.
CAVEAT: In FL (Alaska and Oregon) if you the consumer fail to win your UDAP lawsuit, even if brought in good faith, you get to pay the defendant winner’s attorneys’ fees and expenses. Talk about getting hammered twice! Oh, and check out which industries enjoy total immunity!
“In Michigan and Rhode Island, court decisions have gutted UDAP laws. Iowa does not even allow consumers who have been cheated to go to court to enforce protections. Louisiana, New Hampshire and Virginia exempt most lenders and creditors from UDAP statutes.
“Unfair and deceptive acts and practices laws that were too weak failed to rein in abuses by mortgage lenders and brokers and fueled the current nationwide wave of foreclosures,” said NCLC executive director Will Ogburn.
“Five states – Arizona, Delaware, Mississippi, North Dakota and Wyoming – force consumers to absorb lawsuit costs.
http://www.consumerlaw.org/issues/udap/index.shtml
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
usedkarguy…………subject: Mortgage Securities Fraud 101
Quiz…………………………………….classroom……..Prof. M. Soliman
1) The realtor acts as the trustee? Obfuscating the actions of the “pretender lender” acting to direct the foreclosure, while the “trustee” is hiding behind “holder in due course”?
2) Depose Plaintiff’s counsel and find out at whose direction he is working under?
3) GAAP can only lead to the “gain on sale” or “lack thereof (consideration)”? Asset Pledged and Deposited? my judge doesn’t care, but maybe the OCC does….
4) This is the original recording of the (mortgage)note in the name of the FSB and NOT the SPV?
5) Is the “buy-back” or even “shelving” of a deal proof of derecognition? If the trigger event is supposed to be 20% rate of default, but MI claims pay exponentially more upon default, how is receivership and de-recognition triggered?
6) Fraud in the origination, wire fraud, concealment, negligence, RICO, SEC claims (AB1122), are not the ones. Maybe the Department of Justice or Comptroller of the Currency will look. I give up.
I’m gonna sit there and tell the judge to ask Counsel who he represents? and the causes of action I pleaded must be adjudicated? The registrant is the lender/depositor/sponsor/custodian/sec.admin./FDIC member bank/TARP recipient/fraudulent seller of Securities as evidenced by their $1.4Billion buy back?
I know your gonna tell me I’m close. Yer giving me freakin’ headache! I just don’t think this is winnable in this judges’ courtroom. What could possibly make him smile? a Federal question?
In California and most states after a foreclosure, the bank is NOT entitled to possession. They must file an unlawful detainer and obtain a writ of possession.
I now have deposition testimony and doucments proving that lenders are instructing asset managers and real estate brokers to literally break into peoples houses, change the locks, and scare them into leaving.
Class action in begining stages.
Contact me if interested.
Michael
In California and other states lenders after a foreclosure that does NOT give the bank the right to posession. They are required to file an unlawful detainer and obtain a writ of eviction or similar order before an occupant has to leave.
I now have deposition testimony and documents proving that lenders are instructing asset managers and real estate agents to literally break into houses, change the locks, and try to scare the homeowner into leaving.
If you or I did these we would be put in jail.
Class action in the works.
Please contact me if interested.
Michael
abby
The lenders established as a senior lien and that includes all subsequent funding and transfers of title that SHALL not affect the lenders interests.
What was the consideration for the trust and who are benefactors and the lenders right to accelerate is a likely double negative and bad scenario for the transfer. Read the deed.
There needs more of a story line and then you want to drag this into a probate discussion or what. Equity in the property is greater than debt correct? otherwise they transferred debt and upside down scenarist to benefactors ?
Why?
expert.witness@live.com
Attorneys–if a person had recorded their home property as a part of a revocable living trust with a named trustee, and the foreclosure ignored that–is there any recourse by the trustee of the revocable living trust.
In essence–the securities trustee and the loan servicer foreclosed and sold the property back to the securities trustee, but the property’s last good recorded document was the placing of the the property into the revocable living trust.
I know that in order to do a refi of a property placed in a revocable living trust, the mortgage company always makes the trustee to the revocable living trust sign papers, which are recorded, that moves the property out of the revocable living trust–just so the refi can occur. Then, the property was recorded anew into the revocable living trust.
Any thoughts on this?
This came up on one my “Google Alerts”. IS IT IMPORTANT?
MERS and all the Pretenders in the same bed with AIG as defendants
filing a federal district Motion of centralization in the United States District Court or the District of Arizona …….
RE-POST LOOKS LIKE FIRST POST ATTEMPT FAILED MODERATION
——————————————————————————-
MDL No. 2119 — IN RE: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS) LITIGATION
Motion of defendants CitiMortgage, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; MERSCORP, Inc.; National City Bank; National City Mortgage; National City Corp.; PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; and AIG United Guaranty Corp. for centralization of the following actions in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona:
District of Arizona
Olga Cervantes, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al., C.A. No. 2:09-517
Jonathan E. Robinson, et al. v. GE Money Bank, et al., C.A. No. 4:09-227
Central District of California
Alfonso Vargas, et al. v. Countywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-2309
District of Nevada
Josefa S. Lopez, et al. v. Executive Trustee Service, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:09-180
Aleta Rose Goodwin, et al. v. Executive Trustee Services, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:09-306
Joseph Green, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-374
Lacy J. Dalton, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-534
“OLD IS GOLD”
December 10th 2009
By M.Soliman
Here’s another little “Lender Deal Killer” for saving a home. Its a quiz for the desperate homeowner looking to crush a lenders lies and save their home….starting on Monday!
First answer all the questions:
1) How can a Realtor and their role in the sale of your home blow the cover of the beneficial parties?
2 ) Who is the party you “must” depose before any hearing or trial?
3) What does the FDIC and GAAP have to do with your loan not being paid back?
4) Who is the Dead Beat where a lender walked on a “line of credit” and an outstanding balance that may match the amount of you loan . . .but has nothng to do with it?
5) Why is derecognition the end of the game for lenders if only a homeowner looking to save their home will use the arguments?
6) What three causes of action or counts to get a judge to sit up straight smile and look at you and say “Gooooood Morning!” (its not the Judges you cant trust, believe me)
General Observation:
Advice I received one day came from a 711 clerk of all people was this! . He said “Old is Gold”.
I still have no idea what the guy was talking about…..but!
Do you believe there is something for nothing. Well if you do your not a sucker. In accounting “Free” violates common sense and everything in life is a taxable event.
People, it is possible to have financed your home and without knowing it you entered into a high stakes game of “options” and won! To hedge a markets position there has to be a “put” and a “call” , or going long (bullish) and going “short” (contrarian).
There is nothing for free, but your lender may have lost the game of speculation based on going long and you are the winner take all . How do I know…do the math and remember what i told the 711 east cleric and sage ” accounting does not lie” (Sec Treasury excluded)
————————————————————————————–
The market collapse was the end to the “bubble” and markets upside. They either cash in the chips (certificates) or lose with no middle ground. And you prevailed in a housing market that crashed. . .by not making payments at that.
You prevailed and cant figure out they are trying to get your home to merely cover losses. There is no last chance in the Chicago Mercantile or especially in a Las Vegas Casino.
. . . want more proof? It would take you a decade for you to count from one to one billion backwards.
Count to a trillion backwards and it puts you back to
a. George Washington presidency
b. The Civil War
c. Gilligan’s Island on CBS prime time
d. The Stone age
(answer) Beyond the stone age in fact….counting to one $ Trillion.
The US deficit is at least $11.5 trillion. ** News Flash** AIG from speculative investment coverage is indebted some ** $363 Trillion. **
Looks like the homeowner is a Winner!
Folks, if your case (court and attorney) was filed and has dragged on more than 45 days ….its over. And you probably lose. That I am serious about!
Make the right arguments Counsel.
STOP GUESSING DAMN IT!
Game over….I am telling you …game over!
(its not just free speech…its accurate!)
M. Soliman
Legal advice is unlawful and verifiable, substantiated opinions are better!
.
For Questions –
mail to: expert.witness@live.com
This angle was one of my favorites earlier this year…
SEC Pursuing Securities Fraud in Mortgage Industry
The SEC is actively identifying and holding accountable those who commit securities fraud in the mortgage industry, charging former officers at New Century Financial Corp. for misleading investors as its subprime mortgage business was collapsing, and charging Brookstreet Securities Corp. for routinely selling risky mortgage-backed securities to investors for whom they were unsuitable.
expert.witness@live.com
USFN Presents Annual Awards
Honors ……… Honors ……… Honors for all.
For your dedicated service and professional
conduct.
‘SCUSE ME, I THINK I’M GONNA
THRO**^%&%## urggle urggle
——————————————
USFN Presents Annual Awards
Attorney network USFN has honored several of its members for their distinguished service throughout year. The awards were presented at USFN’s Member Education Retreat & Annual Meeting last month in Key Largo, Fla., by the group’s president, Richard Rothfuss.
Cynthia Nierer of Rosiciki, Rosicki & Associates was named USFN Member of the Year. The directing partner of **closings and evictions** at the Plainview, N.Y.-based firm, Nierer was honored for her involvement with USFN’s REO/Eviction Committee, where she helped to expand and update the organization’s REO/Eviction Desk Guide following the passage of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.
Tom Dore, chairman of USFN’s Membership Committee, was named USFN Committee Chair of the Year. A partner at Towson, Md.-based Covahey, Boozer, Devan & Dore, he is a longtime active volunteer on various task forces and subcommittees, USFN says. ………
(me: and lastly FDLG gets the NOD)
USFN also awarded Mike Echevarria, of Florida Default Law Group, with the Michael C. Barrett Industry ** Innovator ** Award, which was developed this year to commemorate industry legend Michael C. Barrett, who passed away in January.
(May Mr Echevarria make you LONG remembered by his Innovative Illustrious use of 4closureF****)
The inaugural recipient of the award, Echevarria is a managing partner at the Tampa, Fla.-based law firm and was an associate and longtime friend of Barrett. He also fully demonstrates the work ethic so highly regarded by Barrett, USFN says.
—————————————————————-
urggle …… ooarrth uuoosh
SPLAT
No Chapter Filing for Protection should be Dismissed so Quickly
December 9th 2009
By M.Soliman
In 2009 to date, I have heard of only of two adversary hearings in bankruptcy. I don’t like Bk filing where the venue allows a lender to be immediately recognized as legit. Its similar to a RESPA / TILA audit that backfires and gives the seller of the loan a chance to jump back in an provides immediate credibility as a secured creditor.
Lenders maybe lost forever to a note and deed yet given significant merit for their distant interest relying on a stock certificate gone sour to return and claim your home.
.
Your yielding a counter argument and presumptive claim in BK with no regard for conditions precedent. By the time of a creditor meeting your restored the lenders credibility and presumption of having a sole beneficial interest.
How can a bankruptcy attorney allow this to happen to borrowers holding a verifiable obligation lacking a verifiable obligee. You cannot source with any integrity the standing for a lenders claims to have a full right of collect ion for a delinquent private label loan.
One after another BK dismissed with not even one additional adversary hearing. Therein EVERY bankruptcy should include a debtor to be allowed to motion for “adversary” without enduring a trustees prejudice towards frivolous claims lacking merit and seen cause for dismissing so many filings.
Therein, no filing should ever be dismissed until the lenders standing as a secured or unsecured creditor or upon some debt validation criteria subject to discharge can be determined in a bankruptcy hearing before a district judge.
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Often a borrower is told by the servicing agent the loan in default is retained by the bank. True to form the loan is evidenced delivered under a late assignment, typically before issuing a notice of sale. We can’t determine if it is committed /sold at time of initial funding, pool cut off or time of assignment.
There are questions about loans delivered under a late assignment and surviving the above arguments (consider under MERS) as a questionable beneficial interest.
Accounting and general ledgers wont lie. Still, read your note or any information found on the deed of other supplemental disclosures representing your loan as one thing over the other.
Verbal understandings are implied vs express and less enforceable by comparison to written contract. The oral agreement will diminish if shown contrary to a written agreement. However, under Ca CC$1623.0 “Where a contract, which is required by law to be in writing, is prevented from being put into writing subject to fraud of a party thereto, any other party who is by such fraud led to believe that it is in writing, and acts upon such belief to his prejudice, may enforce it against the fraudulent party.
Lender servicer’s offering a modification, if verbal, are none the less binding. However, as often the case it should have been in writing. If the borrowers loan mod request is not forthcoming upon performance in a verbal agreement (versus written) counsel shall determine the likelihood for a breech and support for deceptive practices arguments , damages or liability.
Determine if the broken promise to cure a borrower default was deceptive and weighted towards investor recourse, mitigating risk or for satisfying a counter party agreement.
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
The Plaintiffs action in a foreclosure, thus inconsistently but affirmatively alleges, Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage” when in fact that Plaintiff does not and cannot legally establish possession or ownership of the Note or the Mortgage and that same is/are in the possession of an unknown party or parties;
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
December 8th 2009
Remember,
We have reviewed a multitude of files for Counsel and pro per (filings) over 24 months. We testify that not one foreclosure file is absent the argument the deed is defect from improper assignments, missing assignments, improperly endorsed instruments, lagging recordings, late substitutions and it goes on and on and on.
NOT ONE – GOT IT If the deed causes a defect in Title the contractual obligation with all its rights are unenforceable. Where the deed is defect the sale must fail. If the defect appears from fraud perpetrated while executing a foreclosure under the authority of a trustee the sale to a third party must also fail.
Here is the latest – It is happening as I write and to a blessed and special couple of people in another chapter of “let’s steal your home!”
The Notice of default is filed on June 15th 2009. The Notice includes a critical component of our fraud investigation I will share with all of you tonight.
NOTE – Look at the far upper left hand corner of the NOTICES and always determine who is listed as follows-
REQUESTED BY:
Party (Trustee)
with the NEW authority to execute on behalf of the beneficiary. It is near always left BLANK (Hmmm).
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Party (Trustee)
with the VESTED authority to receive recorded information executed on behalf of the beneficiary. It is always completed.
I now look to see where there is a “SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE” that MUST predate the REQUESTED BY as shown above.
The SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE is executed by notary and dated June 22, 2009 and recorded June 25th 2009. The Substituted Trustee requested a NOTICE OF DEFAULT 10 days in advance (June 15th 2009) of the required recording or before executing by signature the necessary substitution.
CRIMINAL INTENT -The act is likely something to be ruled negligent and needed for a judge to hear a claim of “Void” from the errors in executing the Notice of default improperly.
However, someone took a rubber stamp and placed the name of another trustee, a random title company on the area above “RECORDED BY”.
There is the deliberate attempt to circumvent the civil code mandating proper procedural requirements in a foreclosure under a Power of Sale.
Rebutable Defense – The stamped in Title Company was acting as agent.
Counsel – WRONG. We have a title company on the deed as trustee, then MES replaces the trustee, then MERS yields its rights to the title Company as trustee (stamp) then the Title company implies releasing its rights as a trustee to the recovery firm who executes and records it defect substitution well into the 10 days subsequent to the Notice of default being filed?
What the #+!!
America;
Who owns your loan? And if “they” abandoned you home as securities written down or charged off….
who is stealing your home?
Good luck!
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
QUOTE – Your Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.
Sir Winston Churchill; said at the height of the nightly enemy bombing of London.
DEBT RATERS AVOID OVERHAUL AFTER CRISIS
By DAVID SEGAL
Published: December 7, 2009 A.D.
When the financial crisis began, few players on Wall Street looked more ripe for reform than the Big Three credit rating agencies.
Ratings agencies’ disregard is “at the heart of what’s wrong with Wall Street today.” — Richard Cordray, attorney general of Ohio.
[Contradictory Missions
Articles in this series are examining the battles being fought to reshape the financial industry in the aftermath of the economic crisis.]
Scott McClesky, a former F.B.I. agent and the man Moody’s hired as its “designated compliance officer,” testified on Capitol Hill that he was marginalized almost from the start and excluded from important meetings at Moody’s.
“We all understand the outrage, but our priority is to prevent this from happening again … ” — Jack Reed, senator from Rhode Island.
“I’m convinced that we’re getting more control over the rating agencies than ever before but not at all sure we’ve developed the perfect system.” Paul Kanjorski, representative from Pennsylvania.
It wasn’t just that Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, played a crucial role in the epochal housing market collapse, affixing their most laudatory grades to billions of dollars worth of bonds that went bad in the subprime crisis.
It was the near universal agreement that potential conflicts were embedded in the ratings model. For years, banks and other issuers have paid rating agencies to appraise securities — a bit like a restaurant paying a critic to review its food, and only if the verdict is highly favorable.
So as Washington rewrites the rules of Wall Street, how is the overhaul of the Big Three coming? It isn’t, finance experts say.
“What you see in these bills are Botox shots,” says Joseph A. Grundfest, a professor of securities law at Stanford Law School. “For a little while, everyone is going to be frozen into a grin, and then the shots are going to wear off.”
What explains the timidity of Congress’ proposals? This is not a case of lobbyists beating back ideas that might hurt their clients, say those close to the discussions. Instead, Congress is worried that bold measures may backfire. The Big Three, by allowing companies and public entities to raise money by issuing debt, are an essential engine in the country’s vast credit factory, and given the still-fragile condition of the equipment, lawmakers are reluctant to try anything but basic repairs, patches and a new alarm system.
In addition, legislators say, there is little consensus about what a top-to-bottom renovation should look like.
Under bills that legislators are currently considering, the rating agencies will have to contend with greater oversight, stiffer rules about disclosure and a provision that would make it easier for plaintiffs to sue the firms. But nothing in the laws tackles the critic-for-hire problem or threatens the 85 percent market share that Moody’s, S.& P. and Fitch now enjoy.
“It’s fair to say we knew we were taking on a problem with no silver bullet,” said Representative Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee that has led reform efforts in the House. “I’m convinced that we’re getting more control over the rating agencies than ever before but not at all sure we’ve developed the perfect system.”
Dozens of Lawsuits
While Congress may be happy with cosmetic surgery, law enforcement officials are getting more aggressive. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the rating agencies, including a case filed on Nov. 20 by the Ohio attorney general on behalf of public pension funds. The Ohio suit, as well as the earlier suits, seeks billions of dollars in damages from the rating agencies and accuses the firms of negligence and fraud.
When he filed his suit, Ohio’s attorney general, Richard Cordray, said that the “rating agencies’ total disregard for the life’s work of ordinary Ohioans caused the collapse of our housing and credit markets and is at the heart of what’s wrong with Wall Street today.”
After the suit was filed, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general, said he planned to join the suit and thought that a “coalition of states” would also jump on the legal bandwagon — a potentially grim development for the rating agencies, which could find themselves contending with a phalanx of state officials like the one that aimed at big tobacco in the 1990s.
The Big Three object that the legislation proposed by Congress could make them more vulnerable to legal action. But they otherwise do not sound particularly exercised about much else that is likely to become law.
“Moody’s shares the committees’ goal of increased transparency for the ratings process,” said Michael Adler, a Moody’s spokesman.
S.& P. is equally sanguine. “We support globally consistent, nondiscriminatory regulation that will help restore investor confidence and bring more transparency to the capital markets,” said Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for Standard & Poor’s. A spokesman for Fitch declined to comment.
Without question, the credit rating system is one of the capitalism’s strangest hybrids: profit-making companies that perform what is essentially a regulatory role. The companies serve the public, which expect them to stamp their imprimatur on safe securities and safe securities alone. But they also serve their shareholders, who profit whenever that imprimatur shows up on a security, safe or not.
To make matters more complicated, rating agencies are deeply entrenched in millions of transactions. Statutes and rules require that mutual fund and money managers of almost every stripe buy only those bonds that have been given high grades by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, as the agencies are officially known.
But even if there is no foolproof way to reform the rating agencies, the measures that Congress is now backing are strikingly weak, a number of critics say. There is no talk, for instance, about creating a fee-financed, independent credit rating agency, one modeled along the lines of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which was established to oversee auditors after the Enron debacle — an idea floated by Christopher J. Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman as recently as August.
That approach would attack the conflict of interest problem head on.
Nor is anyone on Capitol Hill suggesting a rewrite of all those rules that put rating agencies in the middle of so much Wall Street action. Instead of cajoling the Big Three into producing more accurate ratings, why not take away the special status of those ratings and make them less important?
“There are a lot of complicated issues that nobody knows how to deal with, like water shortages in different parts of the world,” says Jonathan Macey, a deputy dean at Yale Law School and a member of a bipartisan task force that has conferred with lawmakers about rating agency reform. “But this isn’t one of them. We could solve this one pretty easily with a modicum of political will. It’s just mortifying.”
Meantime, to the consternation of detractors, the companies are now earning fees from a new source: re-Remics, an acronym for resecuritization of real estate mortgage investment conduits. These are transactions that take downgraded mortgage securities and separate the riskiest assets from the strongest, making the strongest easier to sell.
The companies do not break out re-Remic revenue in financial reports, but to some, it seems to be a way for rating agencies to profit from a mess they helped make.
Academics and former rating agency employees who have been warning lawmakers about the Big Three for years say Congress is tiptoeing when it ought to be charging ahead. But for now, and for the foreseeable future, the market for ratings is sure to look uncannily similar to the one that helped usher in the crisis: three rivals, all of them paid by issuers, bestriding the market.
It is a picture of the future so rosy and so rife with the potential for profits that some investors see a buy sign.
“I’ve had a few hedge funds call and ask me what I think of the rating agencies as investments,” said Frank Partnoy, a professor of law and finance at the University of San Diego school of law, who has written extensively on the rating agencies. “If the dysfunctional regulatory structure stays put, the rating agencies soon will be back to business as usual, which will mean a continuing monopoly and sky-high operating margins approaching 50 percent.”
In November 2005, the structured finance department of Moody’s held its annual off-site meeting at Chelsea Piers, a sports and entertainment complex in Manhattan. The day, according to several attendees, started as it always did, promptly at 8 a.m. There were hours of presentations, trust-building exercises and near dinnertime, a small concert by three top executives dressed as the Blues Brothers.
Their song, an original called “The Compliance Blues,” was all about the problems of dealing with Moody’s compliance department, the group in charge of maintaining the company’s ratings standards. A photo of the faux Blues Brothers later showed up in Moody’s in-house magazine.
The performance, according to several former Moody’s employees who requested anonymity because they have signed severance agreements, turned the company’s quality control team into comic fodder. And it came just as the Securities and Exchange Commission was publicly devising the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006. One of the act’s major new initiatives: bulking up the compliance departments.
Mr. Adler, the Moody’s spokesman, says that the Blues Brothers skit “poked fun at the intensity of our own compliance efforts,” and was meant to underscore “that while dealing with these compliance obligations could be cumbersome and time-consuming for analysts, it was nonetheless crucial to our business.”
Others remember it differently. Scott McCleskey, a former F.B.I. agent and the man Moody’s hired as its “designated compliance officer,” in accordance the 2006 act, testified on Capitol Hill last summer that he was marginalized almost from the start and excluded from important meetings at Moody’s, including those with the S.E.C. when it examined the company.
He was fired in 2008, having been told little more than that he had lost the confidence of his bosses.
The ease with which Moody’s side-stepped provisions of the 2006 law — which also gave the S.E.C. more authority to inspect the agencies, among other measures — has some critics arguing that Washington is now simply pushing a stronger version of old and ineffective medicine. At minimum, much of what is in the House and Senate bills sounds familiar.
Both bills enhance the power of the S.E.C. to supervise the rating agencies and both require the companies to bulk up their compliance teams. The Senate bill allows individuals to sue a rating agency for a “knowing or reckless failure to investigate or to obtain analysis from an independent source.”
Mr. Kanjorski and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who led the Senate’s look at rating agencies, said in interviews that they thought their bills went as far as possible to change the system in a judicious manner.
“We all understand the outrage,” Mr. Reed said, “but our priority is to prevent this from happening again, rather than looking backwards and punishing.”
Mr. Reed has listened in recent months to lots of proposals that would have aimed at the issuer-pays system and promoted alternatives. He also looked at the idea of curtailing the importance of ratings by rewriting rules and laws that require mutual fund and money managers to stick to triple-A securities.
But he was concerned about the huge numbers of professional investors out there — like those working for small towns — who don’t have the resources to research every bond they buy.
Mr. Kanjorski said he worried about remedies that undermined the Big Three because they were pretty much the whole system right now.
“We want to do as much correction as we can,” he said, “but we don’t want to kill the institutions because we have nothing to replace them with.”
One senior Senate aide, who requested anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak, said that the bill that would reach President Obama’s desk early next year would merely be a beginning.
“Look at what happened in the 1930s,” this aide said, “they passed bill after bill after bill. Now, we’re not going to do that, but credit rating agencies are so tied into the way business is conducted, so tied into rules, it’s going to be incredibly complicated to unwind, and we’re not going to fix it all in one bill.”
Still, there is worry that if Congress doesn’t think ambitiously now, it never will. Mr. Macey of Yale Law School, who advocates rewriting the rules that now require nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations to bless countless deals, says that the ratings system as it currently stands encourages bubbles.
“You have to ask yourself this question, in any matter of financial reform: Does the change increase the chances of lemminglike behavior?” he said. “Because that is the root of all great busts. The price of tulips doesn’t soar because a newspaper says that tulips are undervalued. It soars because everyone is buying them. And that’s the problem with ratings. They turn investors into lemmings.”
Business Is Down
Even after the disastrous performance of recent years, the Big Three remain deeply entrenched. In September, four companies — Bank of America, Nissan, Discovery and American Express — issued structured finance bonds, worth more than $6 billion, and paid Moody’s to rate them. None of the companies would comment on their transactions with the rating agencies.
Business, of course, is down for the rating agencies compared with the boom years. Revenue at Moody’s will this year come in at approximately $1.8 billion, predicted Michael Meltz, an analyst for J.P. Morgan Securities, down about 20 percent from the peak in 2007. Shares that traded in the 70s two years ago now trade in the mid-20s.
“The brands have been hurt in the last five years, that’s a factual statement,” Mr. Meltz said. “But when I look at these stocks and see where they’re trading relative to the market, given their earnings generating capacity, I find them attractively valued.”
Given how entrenched the ratings giants already are, some worry that the current legislative proposals will solidify their positions.
“I think these bills are misguided and wrongheaded because they will have the ironic effect of making the incumbents even more important,” said Lawrence J. White, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University. “They’re going to encrust the procedures already in place and discourage new business models.”
The paradox is that everyone — even the Big Three — insist that the current system has to change. But somehow, what looked like the low-hanging fruit of financial reform is still dangling, right where it hung at the start of this calamity.
(c) New York Times
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now we know better why Congress is having trouble taking on The Big Three rating agencies that were critically central to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
12.08.09 10:22 PM
* DECEMBER 8, 2009
ACCOUNTING BOARD CHALLENGED IN COURT
By FAWN JOHNSON and JESS BRAVIN
The legality of a federal board that oversees accounting firms was debated before the Supreme Court on Monday, with conservative justices suggesting that the board enjoys more independence from the president than the Constitution permits.
The Supreme Court will review whether Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is constitutional, in a case that could affect the status of other quasi-independent executive-branch entities. WSJ’s Supreme Court Correspondent Jess Bravin reports.
The case, one of the major business disputes to be considered by the high court this term, tests a key provision of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Responding to concerns about the accounting that led to the collapses of Enron and WorldCom, Congress established an independent body to oversee the firms that do accounting for public companies.
The law gives the Securities and Exchange Commission power to name the members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The plaintiffs in the case before the court Monday — a free-enterprise group and an accounting firm — say that violates a clause of the Constitution giving the president the power to appoint government officials except for certain instances involving “inferior officers.”
If the justices agree that the accounting board isn’t constitutional, it could force Congress to revisit Sarbanes-Oxley, or at least the portion of it that creates the accounting board. It could also call into question other independent agencies and how they appoint members of similar boards.
During oral arguments, conservative justices including Antonin Scalia noted that the president’s control over the accounting board is limited because the board answers to all five independent commissioners of the SEC, not just the chairman.
“The president has adequate control over the SEC only because he can dismiss the chairman of the SEC. But the activity here is not governed by the chairman of the SEC,” Justice Scalia said. “The governance of this board is by the members of the SEC.”
Because of its power to initiate investigations into accounting firms, the board can take “actions that can have significant, devastating consequences for the regulated bodies,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justice Samuel Alito asked what the president can do if he objects to the large salaries of board members. In the budget approved for 2009, the accounting board chairman has a salary of $672,676 and the other four members make $546,891 each.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the president could call the SEC chairman or commissioners and say, “I have a problem with this.”
“I could do that,” Justice Scalia said, prompting laughter.
Liberal justices, who are less likely to find fault with the independent agencies that play a central role in modern regulation, disputed suggestions that the board was free to run roughshod over the accounting firms it supervises.
“This is a board that has a relationship with the SEC, where it can’t do anything that doesn’t have the SEC’s approval,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
The case, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, seemed likely to hinge on the views of the court’s frequent swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Justice Kennedy, without hinting at his perspective, initiated a line of questioning about whether it is appropriate for the president to make recommendations to an independent agency.
“Are you encouraging the president, on an ongoing, daily basis, to instruct an independent agency what he wants done?” Justice Kennedy asked Jeffrey Lamken, the attorney representing the accounting board. Mr. Lamken said the president has the same control over the board as he does over everything else that falls under the SEC’s jurisdiction.
“Which is nothing,” said Justice Scalia.
Several former SEC chairmen and accounting-industry groups support the current setup of the accounting board.
Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt said the system now makes the SEC the “ultimate setter and arbiter of policy affecting our capital markets.” If the accounting board were to become completely separate from the SEC, Mr. Pitt said, “the accounting profession would be torn in two diametrically opposite directions, and the SEC’s policy objectives would be lost.”
But for conservative legal scholars, the case is less about the accounting board itself than about the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that because the president is accountable to the electorate, he must be able to remove federal officials at will.
—Kara Scannell contributed to this article.
Write to Fawn Johnson at fawn.johnson@dowjones.com and Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A6
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
Just back from DC, where today Tuesday Chairman Barney Frank’s HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE takes up THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
Witness List (panelists) & Prepared Testimony:
Panel one:
* Ms. Molly Sheehan, Senior Vice President, Chase Home Finance
* Mr. Jack Schakett, Risk Management Executive, Credit Loss Mitigation Strategies
* Ms. Julia Gordon, Senior Policy Counsel, Center for Responsible Lending
* Dr. Anthony B. Sanders, Distinguished Professor of Real Estate Finance, Professor of Finance School of Management, George Mason University
* Ms. Laurie Goodman, Senior Managing Director, Amherst Securities, LLP
* Mr. Bruce Marks, Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America
Panel two:
* The Honorable Herbert M. Allison, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, U.S. Department of the Treasury
* Mr. Michael H. Krimminger, Special Advisor for Policy, Office of the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
* Mr. Douglas W. Roeder, Senior Deputy Comptroller Large Bank Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Available Member Statements: are available at: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/fchr_120809.shtml
The email address (most effective way to communicate) and comment form is: http://financialservices.house.gov/contact.html
The hearing can be followed here LIVE via webcast or after at:
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia-live/financialserv/16489/300_financialserv-qwertyuiop_070131.asx
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Offered by MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Speech by SEC Chairman:
Remarks at the American Securitization Forum
by Chairman Christopher Cox
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Grand Hyatt Hotel
New York, New York
June 7, 2006
Thank you, Cam, for that kind introduction. And thank you all for inviting me to speak to you at the American Securitization Forum.
As you may know, I’m waging a campaign for plain English in every aspect of securities regulation. So naturally I wanted to come to talk to any group whose name requires six syllables.
Obviously you all know what you mean by “securitization.” But have you ever asked a normal person what they think your name means? I did. On the train on the way up here, I asked several of the passengers what they thought “securitization” means.
The first one asked me to repeat it. Not once but three times. Each time I’d say “securitization” he’d say … “What?” Then I offered to help him. I said, “You know, ABS.” And he said, “Well, you’re full of BS.”
I asked an intelligent looking woman what she thought securitization meant. She gave it some thought before saying, maybe it meant … contracting out prison facilities? Or possibly home security systems? When I gave her a hint that it had something to do with the Bond Market Association, she got very close. She said “I know! It’s the process of turning bonds . . . into securities!”
I asked her if that was her final answer. And she asked me why I was so interested … what did I do for a living? I told her I was the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And she said, “Oh, I get it — you’re the head of the securitization organization!”
It’s perhaps fortunate for all of you that I’m not. And even if the ASF of the BMA which focuses on ABS could use a little plain English, the plain truth is that your industry holds the key to our nation’s dreams.
Any American with a home, a car, or a child in college – that is to say, millions of Americans – depend on what you do. Homes, cars, and college tuition, like so many other things we need, are more often than not financed with loans. And the chances are good that when we finance these necessities, our loans are securitized. It’s also very likely that had they not been securitized, many of these loans could never have been extended in the first place.
The increased liquidity that securitization brings means lower credit costs – and that’s good for everyone. That’s why it doesn’t come as a surprise that asset-backed securities are now the largest segment in all of fixed income. Last year, they surpassed U.S. Treasury debt, even in a year with runaway deficit spending.
So there’s no doubt that every consumer in America depends on you, and benefits from your work – even if they’ve never heard of you. Perhaps you should take a cue from the Chairman of the SEC, and get a name like mine, with just one syllable.
Then maybe the same thing will happen to you that happened to me at a crowded football stadium in Los Angeles last fall. I was at the SC-UCLA game at the Coliseum for a tailgate party before the kickoff, talking with a group of friends, when a woman walked up to me and said: “Excuse me, are you the new Chairman of the SEC?”
I said, “Yes, I am.” And she said, “Really?” And I said “yes, really.” So then she asked, “Will you autograph this ball for my son?” And I said sure. And I watched as she took the ball back to her son and said, “You’ll never believe it! I just got the autograph of the new Chairman of the Southeastern Conference!”
Well, there’s nothing like a reality check now and then.
So don’t feel too bad if a lot of people can’t use “securitization” in a sentence. All they see is a record-breaking increase in home ownership. Or auto loans that are easier to afford. Or a healthier economy that produces more jobs. Just take it in stride that they almost certainly don’t know what role you’ve played in it.
The same may be said for the Securities and Exchange Commission, and its law enforcement role in our markets. Main Street investors may not know about all the cases we bring. But they do know that their retirement savings, their future health care, and their college plans all depend on healthy capital markets.
So just like all of you, I won’t mind if the Commission and its talented staff aren’t center stage, so long as our markets are working efficiently and investors are confident that they’ll be treated fairly.
That, of course, is a lot easier said than done. In recent years, our nation has faced some of the biggest scandals in American corporate history. That gave rise to some of the most important SEC enforcement actions in our agency’s 72-year history. In the days since Enron, often working in tandem with the criminal authorities, the SEC has brought cases that have resulted in more than $7.5 billion in civil penalties and other monetary relief to investors.
My message to you here this afternoon is: we won’t let up.
The coming years are going to be a time of continuing aggressive enforcement – because the continued health and prosperity of our markets depends on it. As the SEC has always done, we will constantly adjust and refine our priorities and our focus to meet changing market conditions. But the overall theme is exactly the same: the market cop is on the beat.
To illustrate some of the current trends in enforcement, I’d like to share with you some of the recent cases we are bringing, and the reasons we’ve done so.
I am quite sure that most, if not all, of you in this room have followed the Commission’s investigation of Fannie Mae. The initial results were announced two weeks ago. We filed a case alleging several serious violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by Fannie Mae over the seven years between 1998 and 2004. Together with Fannie’s regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, we obtained a penalty of $400 million.
Fannie Mae is an important instrument of national policy, with a job similar to yours – helping to make the goal of home ownership possible for millions of Americans. Fannie is invested with a public trust. The Commission’s action, and the highly critical investigation report by OFHEO, exposed a breach of that trust.
Our case against Fannie was based on evidence that convinced us that this congressionally-chartered organization engaged in a number of fraudulent accounting practices to enhance its bottom line, meet earnings projections, and trigger higher bonuses for management. In certain cases they did so with the apparent approval and even participation of senior management.
Fannie’s penalty – and its significant size, $400 million – may be old news to you. But you may not know that as a result of a new provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, most of that substantial penalty will be returned to investors through what is known as a FAIR Fund.
This creation of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act is designed to see to it that SEC penalties go directly to benefit the investors who were harmed. This is an important point: we are no longer simply sending corporate fraud penalties to the Treasury. We are in the business of getting them back into the pockets of the people who were hurt by the fraud in the first place.
To date, we have collected some $5.7 billion in Fair Funds. And we’re working aggressively to distribute those funds to harmed investors. For example, just a few weeks ago, we received judicial authority to distribute to investors $150 million in penalties from the Bristol-Myers Squibb accounting case.
While I’m on the subject of penalties, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Commission – acting unanimously – has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines on when and how corporate penalties will be imposed. These guidelines set forth a number of factors, including the benefit to the company that acted unlawfully, the level of the company’s intent, and the need for deterrence. They’re meant to give both law enforcement authorities and potential defendants a clear, reliable picture of what to expect. They represent an essential element of our enforcement mission: clear rules, clearly enforced.
Clarity and consistency in law enforcement, and the reduction of uncertainty for shareholders and the market, are hallmarks of good government. And they are a cornerstone of our work at the SEC.
Since the Commission issued these guidelines, we’ve had a number of occasions to test them. In three recent cases alone – our actions against AIG, Tyco, and McAfee – we have imposed a combined $200 million in penalties. Each of these decisions has been unanimous. And the results send a clear message: civil penalties are an important part of our enforcement arsenal – not just in theory, but in practice.
Another principle of our approach to enforcement is cooperation with other levels of government and other authorities.
From federal and state criminal authorities to our counterpart securities regulators in the states, we’ve got to share intelligence and exploit our respective strengths in order to achieve the maximum level of investor protection. For this reason, we’re working closely with the blue sky authorities in the 50 states and territories, including your Attorney General’s office here in New York, and with every federal and state department and office that’s concerned with business and finance.
One of our most important cooperative ventures is our joint initiative, announced last month, with the North American Securities Administrators Association, to curb fraud against America’s senior citizens. This is going to be a comprehensive program including on-site examinations of firms that target senior citizens with often deceptive sales pitches. We’re also stepping up information-sharing with state agencies, and intensifying our focus on investor education.
With NASAA’s help, we can reach into every state to protect our burgeoning population of older Americans. This is an exceptionally vulnerable subset of investors who far too often are the targets of scammers’ come-ons. An illustration of what I’m talking about is a civil action the SEC has brought against a company called ETS Payphones, and against its principal, Charles E. Edwards.
We alleged that ETS was a massive seven-year Ponzi scheme involving the sale and leaseback of pay telephones. It defrauded some 12,000 investors, many of them seniors, of around $370 million.
Sales pitches in frauds like ETS promise higher rates of return than CDs or other traditionally safe investments. These pitches can be particularly tempting to elderly investors who may be struggling to get by on a fixed income. Most of you probably know someone in this predicament.
Sadly, some 90-year-olds had to go back to work because of their ETS investment losses. I am sure you can appreciate how much this galls me. These are members of the Greatest Generation, the people who saved the world from the evils of Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. Now, in the twilight of their lives, they are being swindled out of their lives’ savings. Surely there’s a special place in hell for those who prey upon our nation’s seniors.
In the District Court, ETS was ordered to disgorge $190 million in illicit profits. But that result was overturned when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sale/leasebacks were not “securities” under applicable federal law. It took a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court – unanimous, I might add – to uphold the Commission’s reading of the law, that the agreements were indeed securities.
Part of the Court’s rationale was that investments like the ones ETS used were “particularly attractive to individuals more vulnerable to investment fraud, including older and less sophisticated investors.”
This case continues today, and we won’t give up. It’s just one more example illustrating some key principles: seeing the job through, fighting on the side of our most vulnerable investors, and leveraging our resources through interagency cooperation.
I shouldn’t fail to mention that the Commission worked closely with the Justice Department on the ETS prosecution. Just a few months ago, in February, Edwards was sentenced to a 13-year prison term and $320 million in restitution. In the future, the only phone he’ll be worrying about is the one in the prison visiting room.
But seniors aren’t the only vulnerable investors. Which brings me to the Anticevic insider trading case, which originated right here in Manhattan, and spun a web of deceit across the globe.
In that action, we sued a current and a former Goldman Sachs employee, along with a host of tippers and tippees, in a complex insider trading scheme. That scheme resulted in at least $6.7 million in illegal profits from trading in 26 stocks. We alleged that the two architects of the scheme illicitly obtained inside information from a diverse range of sources, including investment bankers at Merrill Lynch, a postal worker serving on a grand jury, and even workers at Business Week magazine’s printing plant.
That court case is interesting for a number of reasons. It’s a vivid illustration of how securities fraud can reach from Wall Street to Main Street. It highlights our willingness to work with foreign regulators (in this case, securities regulators in Denmark, Austria, Croatia, and the United Kingdom) and also our commitment to extending the reach of the securities laws to violators no matter where they hide.
In this case and in others, we’re going to do everything we can to keep ordinary investors on a level playing field. That means cracking down on those who steal and misuse corporate information; stringently upholding the accuracy and completeness of corporate disclosure; simplifying public disclosure documents; and – eventually – creating an online resource that will permit investors to make meaningful comparisons between issuers with the click of a mouse.
The overriding end of all securities regulation is to promote investor confidence in financial markets. Of course, public trust and investor confidence can’t be the responsibility of the SEC alone. Nourishing public trust is also the responsibility of every market professional – of every one of you in this room.
Yes, our capital markets are big. Indeed they’re global. And it would be very easy to look at your role as an often anonymous participant in these enormous, faceless financial markets, and to conclude that you don’t have any responsibility to consider the consequences of your actions on the market as a whole – or to believe that because you are but one player, surely those consequences are trivial. You might even rationalize absolving yourself altogether of any responsibility for integrity in the markets, on the grounds that whatever else might come of your actions, you’re playing by the rules.
But if you look at what would happen if most others in your position took that same view – what would happen to the market, and more importantly, to the society that depends upon it – you’ve got to conclude that you simply can’t ignore the bigger picture. The truth is, unless we all think of the bigger picture, not only the rule of law but the entire notion of free, fair, and competitive markets will be at risk.
I sincerely hope this appeal to the better angels of our nature will be a powerful force in our society. But of course, as Madison so famously said, “if men were angels, then no government would be necessary.” For the less angelic among us, there is the Enforcement Division of the SEC.
First and foremost, the SEC is a law enforcement agency. When you buy or sell in the marketplace, you have every right to expect honest dealings. To be sure, with trillions of dollars, marks, pounds, euros, francs, and yen changing hands every day in our fast-moving capital markets, it’s no surprise that sharks swim beneath the surface. But if trading securities in today’s complex markets won’t ever be a day at the beach, neither should it be a rerun of Jaws.
Just like Sheriff Brody in Amity, the SEC’s sworn duty is to keep the financial waterfront safe. It’s our job to help the unsuspecting, the honest, and the innocent stay afloat in the often rough seas of finance. And every once in a while, we blow up a vicious Great White that threatens to destroy the very confidence on which markets – and beach communities – depend.
It’s a warm summer day here in New York, and the weekend’s just a few days away. So as you head to the beach, and call out to your family and friends – “C’mon in, the water’s fine!” – keep in mind that beyond the sunshine and warm water that nature provides, the cop on the beat helps make your holiday possible.
And if you see any sharks in the water, fire up your Blackberry and send a tip to enforcement@sec.gov.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you here today. And thank you for everything you do to uphold the integrity of our markets, and to make our economy and our country better. All of us at the SEC are proud to be your partners.
http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch060706cc.htm
Those of you thinking about going into bankruptcy or who are already there, need to read the paper to which I have presented a link. I have personally met Mr David Leibowitz , and he is a brilliant attorney. He is emerging as one of the premier minds working the Bankruptcy Circuit here in Lake County, Illinois, and Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
This paper discusses the rights of the borrower both in and out of bankruptcy court, and takes the tact of educating practitioners as to the rights afforded by the Uniform Commercial Code and other Federal statutes. It’s a good read, and it’s worth printing the 36 pages to keep around for reference.
Enjoy!
http://www.lakelaw.com/files/Residential-Mortgage-Issues.pdf
Foreclosure Defense – Use the UCC
Something interesting I came across today… Thoughts???
“In light of the fact that virtually all promissory notes taken by banks, mortgage companies, etc., were sold at some time after the “closing” for the respective transactions — without the right in discovery to physically inspect, and photocopy the original wet-ink instrument, (production of the original instrument), meaning that the bank, mortgage company, etc., retained physical possession of the NOTE, standing in court to enforce the instrument in foreclosure is impossible pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. (UCC).
This is the law behind — “Show Me the Note!”
Statutory Requirements For Establishing The Right To Enforce An Instrument
1. Prove status of holder of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or
2. Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or
3. Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309 or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).
UCC § 3-309, requirements.
a. Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (UCC § 3-309(a)(1)).
i. If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it cannot be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument.(See UCC § 3-305. DEFENSES)
b. Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (UCC § 3-309(a)(2)).
NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).
c. Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (UCC § 3-309(a)(3)).
NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).
d. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-309(b)).
****************
UCC § 3-309 Enforcement Of Lost, Destroyed, Or Stolen Instrument.
(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if
(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument
(A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(2) the loss of possession was NOT the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.
****************
An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-203(a)).
If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. (UCC 3-203(d)).
****************
If the bank, mortgage company, etc., sold the NOTE, they have no right to enforce the NOTE, through foreclosure or court proceeding pursuant to the fact that the UCC bars such claimant from invoking the court’s subject matter jurisdiction of the case.
****************
Even if the claimant produces the original wet-ink NOTE, there is a defense to the action pursuant to UCC 3-305.
Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction. Did the bank disclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction?
Did the bank inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the bank?
Did the bank disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party would actually pay off the NOTE? (Satisfaction of Mortgage).
Many discovery questions to be asked when a claimant initiates foreclosure proceedings.
***********
Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a “loan,” when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an “exchange,“ of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a “loan.”
The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]
“In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds.”
In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer’s promissory note as if the property and the Note already belonged to the bank/broker/lender.
So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, FRAUD.”
4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advise…
Thanks, Maher! It took a while to sink in but the facts are the facts. “Yeronner, the plaintiff is NOT the TRUSTEE, it’s the BANK: aka Originator, Depositor, Sponsor, Custodian, Securities Administrator, Master Servicer, Special Servicer, Servicer. Plaintiff’s counsel, will you please divulge who it is you are working for? Who is paying your bill?” Enough Said!
usedkarguy,
I am proud of you….very happy. Now show these nay say’ ers and win your case Damn it!
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Roger;
It’s all about the Bank…an OTS member Federal Savings Bank Brother. You got it…..
When you approached me YOU did not want to hear the message and like others I am then called a Rip Off or nut or one of the two (LOL)
When MSNBC asked their top analyst (whom I know) who is to blame he said…FDIC baby for letting the bank allow this crap to happen in the first place! Who do I call of all the parties interested? FDIC (before MSNBC comments). Who do their attorneys pass me off to – top gun in compliance? And what was one thing that stuck out in the phone call. Four times I am told to “Stop! Calling this a bank Securitization platform!
Let’s see, Wells is Trustee for Citi and B of A is trustee for Wells and B of A is Barclays and …what boat full of crap!
FIERRA was dead maybe 36 months when these Wall Street animals created this alternative to BORING GSE (Fannie and Freddie) lending and used Sub Prime to dupe the regulators . . .
Or maybe not?
I know when I got out that CWHL “indicted” Chairman is complaining about not owning a Bank . . . it was keeping him out of the game and he could not compete. The same guys who said told me in Boston “Why would we do Sub prime…we shop at Macys while you shop at Marshalls”.
Really!
Next the biggest and most prestigious institutional and retail banks are going down in a Rat Vessel of mortgage lending waste! Why?
What happened friends is that owning a Federal Savings Banks under the OTS suddenly made Subprime lending a MUST HAVE and huge hit.
The OTS allows NA’s like WaMu and Indy Crack Bank to open a FSB with its own Depositor base (DEPOSITOR -Get it!) in Provo Utah. What Da Funk.
I see everyone operating in this incestuous game of high profit and high margins teenage wasteland as Washington finalizes deregulation of the banking system. Help Lord. . . there’s more…but who listening…It’s Spam, its solicitation its , its SICK AND NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN! Do I have more….Oh yeah!! ! ! !
M.Soliman
Expert.Witness
(Be careful . . . the hatred and nasty comments are coming Waaaaaaaaa! – I can feel it!)
I GOT IT! There is no “investor” or “third party”. It is only the originator dressed up in costume as “the registrant”. That’s why the foreclosure is continually directed by Wells even thought the attorney says the client is “confidential”. There is no client, just the bank! Especially since these “deals” were shelved. There is no investor, only the Bank that holds the “assets”. And that’s another registrant of Wells “WFASC 1999 trust (formerly Norwest Asset Securities Corp.)” shows ownership relationship via the SEC.
Do I have it now, Maher?
For those with learning impediments . . .
Counsel for the lender!
CASE STUDY (Actual Case)
For those with learning impediments . . .
1) I made a loan…..
2) I sold a loan…..
3) I bought back the home….
Who were you negotiating a deal with when you were talking a modification or short sale during the time from 2) to 3)?
Note : To pursue objects for which men were sent into the world, to employ the mind on subjects most noble within the reach of its present powers, is certainly to lay the best claims to the honor of manhood.
Many who pride themselves on being men of honor, deem it manly to neglect religion, and account it weak and womanish to yield to the tendernesses and softnesses of piety.
But they turn the tables. With powers capable of manly aims but devoted to childish play, they appear to angels as one would appear to us who at the age of fifty should busy himself in making houses in the sand. If they will not ascend to high and manly objects, it would have been better for them always to have remained children.
A child is satisfied with his baubles: but they, possessed of capacities which nothing but God can fill,-which were made to be employed about the kingdom of Christ,-remain restless and uneasy with all their toys about them. If I were always to live on earth, and must be confined to its trifling objects,
I solemnly declare that I would rather eternally remain a child.
ALL MY LIFE I have been intrigued by PARABLES.
* Their EFFECTIVE use in conveying an informing and edifying broader (sometimes insurgent) moral message that can be readily understood by all strata of society.
* Their PSYCHOLOGICAL potency as a vehicle designed to overcome listeners’ defenses, defeat denial, projection, myopia, encourage self-examination, epiphanies, insights, empathies and more.
What PARABLES about the foreclosure crisis and how it is being experienced can WE create here that would sway a judge, a congressperson, a president, a bankster, a lender, an investor, a sheriff, a mayor, a police chief?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FROM WIKIPEDIA: PARABLE
A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters.
Some scholars of the New Testament apply the term “parable” only to the parables of Jesus,[1] though that is not a common restriction of the term. Parables such as “The Prodigal Son” are central to Jesus’ teaching method in both the canonical narratives and the apocrypha.
The word “parable” comes from the Greek “παραβολή” (parabolē), the name given by Greek rhetoricians to any fictive illustration in the form of a brief narrative. Later it came to mean a fictitious narrative, generally referring to something that might naturally occur, by which spiritual and moral matters might be conveyed.[2]
A parable is a short tale that illustrates universal truth, one of the simplest of narratives. It sketches a setting, describes an action, and shows the results. It often involves a character facing a moral dilemma, or making a questionable decision and then suffering the consequences. As with a fable, a parable generally relates a single, simple, consistent action, without extraneous detail or distracting circumstances. Examples of parables are Ignacy Krasicki’s “Son and Father,” “The Farmer,” “Litigants” and “The Drunkard.”
Many folktales could be viewed as extended parables, and many fairy tales also, except for their magical settings. The prototypical parable differs from the apologue in that it is a realistic story that seems inherently probable and takes place in a familiar setting of life.
A parable is like a metaphor that has been extended to form a brief, coherent fiction. Christian parables have recently been studied as extended metaphors,[3] for example by a writer who finds that “parables are stories about ordinary men and women who find in the midst of their everyday lives surprising things happening. They are not about ‘giants of the faith’ who have religious visions.”[4] Needless to say, “extended metaphor” alone is not in itself a sufficient description of parable; the characteristics of an “extended metaphor” are shared by the fable and are the essential core of allegory.
Unlike the situation with a simile, a parable’s parallel meaning is unspoken and implicit, though not ordinarily secret.
The defining characteristic of the parable is the presence of a prescriptive subtext suggesting how a person should behave or believe. Aside from providing guidance and suggestions for proper action in life, parables frequently use metaphorical language which allows people to more easily discuss difficult or complex ideas. In Plato’s Republic, parables like the “Parable of the Cave” (in which one’s understanding of truth is presented as a story about being deceived by shadows on the wall of a cave) teach an abstract argument, using a concrete narrative which is more easily grasped.[2] <<< THIS on spot PARABLE was earlier aptly cited here on LL by Lisa E. (if memory serves) in her stirring well-wishes to Neil occasioned by his welcomed recovery from a recent heart attack.
V
RSVP )=====(
ALLAN ( 0 )^( 0 ) / ^^^^^^^\
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m ($$$$$$$)
– all we need is a rainbow \______/
“Show me da money Brother Ukg and Undercover AOL”- MS
In a recent move to dismiss a class action the court ruled in favor of the Defendant. The court first addressed the standing of the plaintiffs claims against multiple trusts,
Investors Suit / Action for Plaintiff Dismissed
Judge Stearn’s noted, “are separate legal entities” that “each issued its own securities backed by different pools of mortgages.”
Judge Stearn’s found that because the named plaintiffs had only bought certificates from three of the eight defendant trusts, “the named plaintiffs are incompetent to allege an injury caused by purchase of Certificates that they themselves never purchased.”
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Comments: Attorneys are constantly developing new strategies to counter foreclosure efforts by lenders.
Yikes!————————————-
Soliman: What new strategies can compete with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and accrual accounting to demonstrate the time the place and the actual amount of the ledger item being booked.
(1) Auditors – what in God’s name are you auditing? You can’t wait to re-establish a lenders implied claim to a beneficial interest for title once held and sold away?
i. That Promissory Note is a check that you endorsed on lender letterhead to
ii. exchange for consideration, money, GOT IT!
iii. The money for the Note and the note for the money and the money for the note and the….done.
(2) Lender then sells the note to Wall Street investor who is a Bank and principal who filed a registration. The assets acquired are held in investments in an Indentured Trust. (Because past lives as an LLC, Inc, Cooperative, REIT did not work). There is no Indentured Trust buildings and separate locations for securities offerings. Those registrations are just name given to classes and vintages of certificates. The lender WAS one registrant and one or more Trusts – but One Registrant with multiple issuances and offerings under a private placement. Got it.
(3) The loan you received was later sold to an investor. Forget recognition, accounting dilemma, securities for deed and writing down the consideration to zero…..Your loan was sold so who is foreclosing on you? Not the same lender who sold it I hope? If lender is the recovery party, when the loan did was sell and when was it repurchased. “Show me da money Brother Ukg and Undercover AOL”.
Curious Onlookers – My days here are limited so listen to reason and 25 years are insider insight…(make him stop Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!) The servicing agent who is a combination for the same holding company is foreclosing? Then show me the money….on behalf of what legal entity?
Is the trustee foreclosing? For who?
The trust and its beneficiaries are kicking you to the curb? I am soooo sorry but that certificate investors received are a Pass Through “Morons” (Attorneys for Trust) . Trustee must identify who it is benefiting in foreclosure and under what assignment, right and or authority.
MERS is a nominee who secludes and “Hides” the beneficial interest, right? Hey Morons (Trust attorneys) MERS is gone after the assignment scam is completed / so sorry – not after MERS is removed?
Or is this someone foreclosing on you “Parties” earning a Big , Big, BIG commission (hint) and or a partnership (hint ) and or a Trustees office who say’s “screw em- someone owes the money?
Careful here in your generous responses – you do not know what evidence we are sitting on….
Tout’ a leur les Enfant’s
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
I was director of Mortgage Guarantee (Norwalk California) from 1998 through 2003. Prior to that I worked on multiple mortgage backed securities offering and was assigned to writing the PPM. My partners were tax attorneys and an ex “Bear” heavy. Another partner was credited with igniting the non agency mortgage back market back 1993. At that time we brought to market a REIT, the CAIT I, II Funds. All the partners in our firms for which I organized were brilliant mortgage backed securities point person and ex Credit Suisse bond department ….etc etc
Anatomy of a Government-Abetted Fraud: Why Indymac/OneWest Always Forecloses
December 1st, 2009 • Related • Filed Under
Filed Under: Avoid Foreclosure • FDIC • HAMP • IndyMac/OneWest • facing foreclosure • featured • government-abetted fraud
Several times per week, I get phone calls from attorneys. These calls all start out the same. “I am unable to get loan modifications done through a lender. What can I do?” The first question I ask is if the lender is Indymac/One West. Invariably, it is.
I also field the same type of calls from homeowners and from loan modification companies. Everyone is having the problem of Indymac not cooperating with regard to doing loan modifications. Furthermore, if I google the issue or check out loan modification forums, the same is true on the internet.
What is going on with Indymac/One West? Why aren’t they doing loan modifications? This article will try and bring together the known facts for a better understanding of the situation, and discuss what the Indymac situation means for foreclosures in general — and the government’s response to the crisis. First, to understand the situation today, one must have an understanding of the recent history of Indymac.
History
Indymac was a national bank in the U.S. It was insured by the FDIC. On July 11, 2008, Indymac failed and was taken over by the FDIC.
Indymac offered mortgage loans to homeowners. A large number of these loans were Option ARM mortgages using stated income programs. The loans were offered by Indymac retail, and also through Mortgage Bankers would fund the loans and then Indymac would buy them and reimburse the Mortgage Banker. Mortgage Brokers were also invited to the party to sell these loans.
During the height of the Housing Boom, Indymac gave these loans out like a homeowner gives out candy at Halloween. The loans were sold to homeowners by brokers who desired the large rebates that Indymac offered for the loans. The rebates were usually about three points. What is not commonly known is that when the Option ARM was sold to Wall Street, the lender would realize from four to six points, and the three point rebate to the broker was paid from these proceeds. So the lender “pocketed” three points themselves for each loan.
When the loans were sold to Wall Street, they were securitized through a Pooling and Servicing Agreement. This Agreement covered what could happen with the loans, and detailed how all parts of the loan process occurred.
Even though Indymac sold off most loans, they still held a large number of Option ARMs and other loans in their portfolio. As the Housing Crisis developed and deepened, the number of these loans going into default or being foreclosed upon increased dramatically. This reduced cash and reserves available to Indymac for operations.
In July, 2008, the FDIC came in and took over Indymac. The FDIC looked for someone to buy Indymac and after negotiations, sold Indymac to One West Bank.
OneWest Bank and its Sweetheart Deal
OneWest Bank was created on Mar 19, 2009 from the assets of Indymac Bank. It was created solely for the purpose of absorbing Indymac Bank. The principle owners of OneWest Bank include Michael Dell and George Soros. (George was a major supporter of Barack Obama and is also notorious for knocking the UK out of the Euro Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 by shorting the Pound).
When OneWest took over Indymac, the FDIC and OneWest executed a “Shared-Loss Agreement” covering the sale. This Agreement covered the terms of what the FDIC would reimburse OneWest for any losses from foreclosure on a property. It is at this point that the details get very confusing, so I shall try to simplify the terms. Some of the major details are:
* OneWest would purchase all first mortgages at 70% of the current balance
* OneWest would purchase Line of Equity Loans at 58% of the current balance.
* In the event of foreclosure, the FDIC would cover from 80%-95% of losses, using the original loan amount, and not the current balance.
How does this translate to the “Real World”? Let us take a hypothetical situation. A homeowner has just lost his home in default. OneWest sells the property. Here are the details of the transaction:
* The original loan amount was $500,000. Missed payments and other foreclosure costs bring the amount up to $550,000. At 70%, OneWest bought the loan for $385,000
* The home is located in Stockton, CA, so its current value is likely about $185,000 and OneWest sells the home for that amount. Total loss for OneWest is $200,000. But this is not how FDIC determines the loss.
* ‘FDIC takes the $500,000 and subtracts the $185,000 Purchase Price. Total loss according to the FDIC is $315,000. If the FDIC is covering “ONLY” 80% of the loss, then the FDIC would reimburse OneWest to the tune of $252,000.
* Add the $252,000 to the Purchase Price of $185,000, and you have One West recovering $437,000 for an “investment” of $385,000. Therefore, OneWest makes $52,000 in additional income above the actual Purchase Price loan amount after the FDIC reimbursement.
At this point, it becomes readily apparent why OneWest Bank has no intention of conducting loan modifications. Any modification means that OneWest would lose out on all this additional profit.
Note: It is not readily apparent as to whether this agreement applies to loans that IndyMac made and Securitized but still Services today. However, I believe that the Agreement does apply to Securitized loans. In that event, OneWest would make even more money through foreclosure because OneWest would keep the “excess” and not pay it to the investor!
Pooling And Servicing Agreement
When OneWest has been asked about why loan modifications are not being done, they are responding that their Pooling and Servicing Agreements do not allow for loan modifications. Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC has also stated the same. This sounds like a plausible explanation, since few people understand the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. But…
Parties Involved
Here is the”dirty little secret” regarding Indymac and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The parties involved in the Agreement are:
* The Sponsor for the Trust was…………Indymac
* The Seller for the Trust was……………Indymac
* The Depositor for the Trust was………..you guessed it………….Indymac
* The Issuing Entity for the Trust was……………….(drumroll)……………….Indymac
* The Master Servicer for the Trust was……..once again………Indymac
In other words, Indymac was the only party involved in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement other than the Ratings Agency who rated these loans as `AAA’ products.
To make matters worse, Indymac wrote the Agreement in order to protect itself from liability for these garbage loans. By creating separate Indymac Corporations — which the Depositor, Sponsor, and other entities were — Indymac created a bankruptcy-remote vehicle that could not come back to them in terms of liability. However, they did not count on certain MBS securities and portfolio loans coming back to bite them and force them under.
Now, the questions become:
* If Indymac was responsible for Securitization at every step in the Process, and was responsible for writing the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, can they be held accountable for the loans that they are foreclosing on?
* Since Indymac was the Issuing Entity, can they actually modify loans, but refuse to do so because they can make money for OneWest Bank by refusing to do so?
* Does Indymac have to “buy back” the loan from the Indymac Trust in order to do a loan modification?
These are questions that I have no answer for. All I know is that at every step of the way, Indymac was involved in the process, and have taken steps to protect themselves from liability for loans that should never have been made.
Loan Modifications
As referred to earlier, the Agreement covers all aspects of the Securitization Process. With respect to Loan Modifications, the Agreement for Indymac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007 – AR5, states on Page S-67:
Certain Modifications and Refinancings
The Servicer may modify any Mortgage Loan at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the Servicer purchases the Mortgage Loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification.
Page S-12 states the same “policy”:
The servicer is permitted to modify any mortgage loan in lieu of refinancing at the request of the related mortgagor, provided that the servicer purchases the mortgage loan from the issuing entity immediately preceding the modification. In addition, under limited circumstances, the servicer will repurchase certain mortgage loans that experience an early payment default (default in the first three months following origination). See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans—Certain Modifications and Refinancings” and “Risk Factors—Risks Related To Newly Originated Mortgage Loans and Servicer’s Repurchase Obligation Related to Early Payment Default” in this prospectus supplement.
These sections would appear to suggest that the only way that OneWest could modify the loan would be as a result of buying the loan back from the Issuing Trust. However, there may be an out. Page S-12 also states:
Required Repurchases, Substitutions or Purchases of Mortgage Loans
The seller will make certain representations and warranties relating to the mortgage loans pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement. If with respect to any mortgage loan any of the representations and warranties are breached in any material respect as of the date made, or an uncured material document defect exists, the seller will be obligated to repurchase or substitute for the mortgage loan as further described in this prospectus supplement under “Description of the Certificates—Representations and Warranties Relating to Mortgage Loans” and “—Delivery of Mortgage Loan Documents .”
The above section may be the key for litigating attorneys to fight Indymac. If fraud or other issues can be raised that will show a violation of the Representations and Warranties, then this could potentially force Indymac to modify the loan.
HAMP
At this point, it becomes important to note that Indymac/OneWest signed aboard with the HAMP program in August 2009. Even though they became a part of the program, they are still refusing to do most loan modifications. Instead, they persist in foreclosing on almost all properties. And even when they say that they are attempting to do loan modifications, they are fulfilling all necessary requirements so that they can foreclose the second that they “decide” the homeowner does not meet HAMP requirements, — which, since they can make more money by foreclosing on the property, meets the HAMP requirements for doing what is in the best interests of the “investor”.
Why did Indymac even sign up for HAMP, if they have no intention of executing loan modifications? Clearly, just for appearances.
One Final Question
It now becomes incumbent upon me to ask one final question. The Shared-Loss Agreement states the following:
2.1 Shared-Loss Arrangement.
(a) Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives. For each Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Purchaser shall undertake, or shall use reasonable best efforts to cause third-party servicers to undertake, reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts in compliance with the Guidelines and Customary Servicing Procedures. The Purchaser shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring (if available), charge-off and short-sale (if a short-sale is a viable option and is proposed to the Purchaser) alternatives and shall select the alternative that is reasonably estimated by the Purchaser to result in the least Loss. The Purchaser shall retain all analyses of the considered alternatives and servicing records and allow the Receiver to inspect them upon reasonable notice.
Such agreements are usually considered to be interpreted to the benefit of the homeowner, as with HAMP and other programs. In legalese, it is called “Intent”.
What was the “Intent” of the Shared-Loss Agreement? Was the intent to provide OneWest Bank solely with a profitable incentive to take over Indymac Bank? If so, then OneWest has been truly successful in every manner.
Or was the intent to offer to OneWest Bank a way to be compensated for losses for foreclosures, but with the primary goal to assist homeowners in trouble? If this was the intent, then OneWest has failed miserably in its actions. And if so, could OneWest be actionable by the Federal Government for fraud?
In fact the true “Intent” was to limit losses to the Treasury Department. Each and every loan modification done would save the Treasury, and the tax payer, from 80-95 cents on every dollar.
Since, technically, One West would get 5-20 cents of any savings, it should have been an incentive to use foreclosure alternatives. But the reality is that the quick turnaround on foreclosure seems to give OneWest a better return. As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
Conclusion
I have presented the story of Indymac/OneWest and what is happening today. But the story does not end with OneWest. There are over 50 different lenders and servicers who have Shared-Loss Agreements executed with the FDIC. Each Agreement offers essentially the same terms. Though other Lenders do not appear to be acting as flagrantly as OneWest, they are all still engaging in the same actions.
What is the solution for this problem?
* For homeowners individually, the most successes are being achieved by borrowers who are getting knowledgeable attorneys who will not just threaten litigation, but are also willing to act and file the necessary lawsuits. That tends to bring OneWest Bank to the table.
* For the country as a whole, and homeowners in mass, the problem must be brought to the attention of your local Congress Critters. You must hold their feet to the fire. They must know that if they do not respond to what OneWest and other lenders are doing, then they are subject to being voted out of their nice and cushy Congressional Offices.
Will this be easy? No way. After all, the lenders have the money and the ears of Congress. But if we do not draw the line here, then in 10-15 years, the Banks will devise another plan to “loot” the economy, as they do every 10-15 years.
Sorry that last link was bad on the Connecticut case…
Here you go..
Foreclosure Fraud Defense Connecticut – U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee v. Toni Ascenzia et al
4closureFraud
Vince,
If you are in Connecticut this may help…
Foreclosure Fraud Defense Connecticut – U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee v. Toni Ascenzia et al
If not try looking at DEUTSCHE BANK SUES BANK OF AMERICA that was posted in the Homeowners section by Lisa E. aka Foreclosure Hamlet aka Ralph on Nov 30.
“Plaintiff Deutsche Bank AG (“DB”), by and through its attorneys, Williams & Connolly LLP, as and for its Complaint against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), as successor in interest to LaSalle Bank, National Association,”
So, let me think………..let me think………….Now, let me ponder this equation:
BOA is a successor to LaSalle Bank = Holder in Due Course in Foreclosure is a successor to the loan originator
And if that could be argued (and I have no idea if it could), then wouldn’t that show that in the financial industry, holding the original party of an agreement responsible is accepted industry practice?
Would this hold legal water?
I mean, the BANKS themselves are saying that the son (assignee/successor) has to take responsibility for the sins of the father (assignor/originator)?
So, hey, what’s a poor borrower to do when the BANKS themselves are suing each other on that premise?
It’s either the successor in interest DOES (A) or DOES NOT (B) have to answer for it’s predecessor’s actions. Can’t be A when it’s convenient but B when it’s not, can it? ”
4closureFraud
and of course, this is not legal advice…
How can we hold JP Morgan Chase responsible for fraudulent conduct committed by WaMu, on what legal basis? Thank you for providing the answer.
From Vince N.
(408) 828-8078
email: lovdn@yahoo.com
SYSTEMIC RISK AND FANNIE MAE
THE EDUCATION OF JOE STIGLITZ AND PETER ORZAG
* The Wall Street Journal
* REVIEW & OUTLOOK
* DECEMBER 1, 2009 A.D.
As Congress lumbers toward creating a systemic-risk regulator, it’s worth a look back—to 2002, when an economist named Stiglitz and a duo named Orszag wrote a paper with the droll title, “Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-Based Capital Standard.”
We won’t keep you in suspense. The paper, written the year after Joseph Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize for economics, concludes that “on the basis of historical experience, the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero.” Their analysis has recently been making the rounds on the Web to a chorus of chortles.
But the real lesson of the paper is not that Mr. Stiglitz, or Peter Orszag, the current White House budget director, and his brother Jonathan are dupes or rubes. The paper is notable because it represents the almost universally held view of the two government-sponsored mortgage giants at the time and for years afterward.
These pages began writing about the systemic risk posed by Fannie and Freddie at around the same time, but until the very end we were in the distinct minority. Fan and Fred’s own regulator assured the world that they were well-capitalized almost until they were put into conservatorship in September 2008.
The Stiglitz-Orszag paper’s method was to put the companies through “millions of potential future scenarios,” and then to judge the likelihood of default. The assumptions in the test were said to be “severe.” Even so, the probability of a default was found to be “so small that it is difficult to detect.” Some $111 billion in taxpayer-funded bailouts later, with perhaps hundreds of billions to go, the risks have been detected.
To be fair, the Orszags and Mr. Stiglitz acknowledged that “the extremely rare events located in the tail of a distribution are often quite difficult to analyze accurately.” Even so, they noted that White House budget gnomes had tested Fan and Fred’s capital against “the financial and economic conditions of the Great Depression.” The result: “[G]iven 1990 levels of capital, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had sufficient capital to survive.”
In reality, it took barely a year of financial distress for Fan and Fred to burn through their capital and wind up in taxpayer laps. Professor Stiglitz says of his paper today, “I’d like to think that if we’d done the same stress test in 2007 . . . we would have said, ‘You ought to be worried.'” Taxpayers would like to think so too.
The crucial point is that assessing systemic risk is difficult to impossible—and the likelihood of coming to a reliable consensus about it is even lower. Both Orszags and Mr. Stiglitz were officials in the Clinton Administration and saw the debates about Fan and Fred that the Clinton Treasury began in the late 1990s, only to get clobbered by the companies’ lobbying machine. Yet the three amigos still saw fit to put their names to a paper dismissing any risk of failure.
Why should anyone think that regulators—or economists—will predict the next systemic debacle any better? We only know better about the past. When the next problem erupts, as in 2002, smart people will be on both sides of the argument. And when large, systemically important companies are threatened with curbs on their business, they will pay Nobel laureates to write studies that explain away the dangers, and hire lobbyists to block any reform. A future Treasury secretary may also dismiss critics of a future Fannie Mae, or Goldman Sachs, as “ideologues,” as Hank Paulson did in 2007-2008.
The very existence of a systemic risk regulator, or council of regulators, will assist the largest and riskiest firms by creating an illusion of stability in a world made less stable by the implicit guarantee that this regulator would convey. It would be an accident waiting to happen, and one made inevitable by the institution created to prevent it.
Look no further than the eminent Mr. Stiglitz or the brilliant Orszag brothers for how hard it is to detect systemic risk, much less to do anything about it.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18
Copyright 2009 A.D. Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Assessing systemic risk is “difficult to impossible,” unless well-funded independent outside investigative journalists of the caliber of the late Mark Pittman are able to do their jobs unhampered and unobstructed.
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
To Allan: Yeah, I know the judge is telling Plaintiff “Don’t worry, I’ll throw him right out!” I’m considering whether or not I want to imply to the judge that I think HE IS COMPLICIT if he denies me an evidentiary hearing after what has happened just the last week with the Wells Fargo buyback. I’m pretty steamed! Like a clam!
WHY FINANCIALS REALLY ARE IN TROUBLE
The Crisis of 2010
By Ian Cooper
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
An end to our woes is as premature as Jim Cramer calling an end to the depression fears. Unemployment will continue to climb. Consumer spending will suffer. And housing is only expected to worsen, as more resets rear their ugly heads.
Just ask Meredith Whitney. . .
She believes that financials still [sic] sizable headwinds, as the banking sector is “not adequately capitalized today.” She’s even calling for a double dip recession.
Cramer, of course, thinks she’s dead wrong… writing at least three articles pointing out her errors. But if he spent more time doing research and less time criticizing, he’d realize she was right… (We wouldn’t want to remind Cramer of his “brilliant” Bear Stearns call, would we? Too soon?)
Financials really are in trouble, especially this January 1, 2010.
That’s when FAS 167, or the Federal Accounting Standards 167, effective January 1, 2010, will take effect. It’ll basically force financials to bring bad, off-balance sheet asset back to the books… which could trigger substantial Street disasters, comparable to that of Lehman.
“In June 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued an amendment to the accounting standards for transfers of financial assets (SFAS 166) and an amendment to the accounting standards on consolidation of variable interest entities (SFAS 167). Both amendments are effective and will be applied prospectively by the company on January 1, 2010 … Under these accounting standards, the company will record the underlying mortgage loans in these single-family PC trusts and some of its Structured Transactions on its balance sheet. These mortgage loans have an outstanding unpaid principal balance of approximately $1.8 trillion as of September 30, 2009… While Freddie Mac continues to evaluate the impacts of adoption, the company expects that the adoption could have a significant negative impact on its net worth.”
Worse, check out what Wells Fargo had to say recently on FAS:
This comes from Wells Fargo’s Q3 report:
“I want to update you on our most recent analysis of the impact of the application of FAS 166 and 167, which is expected to result in the consolidation of certain off-balance sheet assets currently not included in our financial statements. We provided a preliminary analysis in our second-quarter 10-Q. Based on our continued refinement of this analysis, we now expect approximately $55 billion in incremental GAAP assets to be brought on balance sheet, representing approximately $28 billion in incremental risk-weighted assets.”
And they’re probably not the only ones with this hanging over their heads.
Long story short, financials and our consumer cash-strapped society, are in trouble… big trouble.
We’ll look to short some of the big names in Options Trading Pit as we near January 2010.
WEALTH DAILY
Independent Investment Analysis & Commentary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does this January 1, 2010 deadline help explain why so many banks are now amenable to HUGE buy-ups of non-performing/troubled assets we see special funds loading up on?
Could principal reductions now become commonplace in modifications?
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
UKG, from the limited facts you shared, it appears that the Court is offering the Plaintiff (or their counsel) the option of attending the hearing by telephone.
When I am in Cambridge, I sometimes appear by phone as a Pro Se defendant in Miami courts.
Hope this allays your concern.
Oh, nice job on disguising the phone number. Would hate to have some prankster call in as a “pretender lender.”
BTW, it’s Buehler’s day off!
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Abby in CA, on November 16th, 2009 at 8:24 am Said:
Deontos-had lengthy conversation with S. Corbitt about the Solano UD case.
* * * Decided by Court and ruled with PREJUDICE* * *
(Hearsay when interpreted for another person).
(1) She had an attorney not affiliated with M. Soliman.
M. Soliman said: Yes I recommended the attorney handling the matter. I asked her to let go the attorney of 9 months. We should find an “appearance” attorney who can get this mess over in a OCS within 48 hours. And we did.
(2) She felt that there were other factors the judge made his decision on, such as the opposing attorneys not ever showing up in court at all.
.
Soliman said – Not showing up! Abby stop. The facts of the case are being distorted and this is not a game. We were embroiled in a lawsuit for over 9 mos Opposition was determined and I worked the case for counsel six months prior. Not showing up?
She felt the judge was not happy with that.
Soliman said: So he dismissed with prejudice?
Come on….I wrote a briefing on the testimony I intended to provide in the unlimited civil matter.. It got the point across you might say.
Maher did ‘write’ a paper as an expert witness.
She did have Maher do an audit, (Audit – what a loan the lender does not own?) But she had to travel from northern california down to LA to see him & spend a great deal of time with him.
Soliman said: one hour on Halloween evening?The case was done in advance for nine months and the other attorney was dropped 72 hour prior. She came to LA to see here friends.
Maher did not make any appearance in the court proceedings.
Soliman Said: Ask Neil about an attorney client privilege. They can toss you and all your testimony out, rewrite it or discard it and often for last minute strategies.
Attorneys wanted me ready for the unlimited civil matter and that was what my prep was for, I don’t do U D testifying anymore. (you ever been to one?)
She is now pro se in her larger mortgage related case.
Soliman Said: Listen to the facts! She is under a Limited Scope Engagement Agreement for counsel to appear as needed. It saves LOTS OF MONEY AND IS FAR MORE AFFECTIVE.
She said the opposing counsel in the U.D. can still appeal.
Soliman Said: Appeal, a UD matter when the larger case is still pending. I view it as the judge seeking to consolidate.
Her and I will be meeting for coffee.
Soliman Said: I heard and I am looking forward to joining you two.
Case in Point – If our friend is sincere in understanding the case then fine. She shows us how much lack of court presence and procedures are killing us folks.
Here is an example of someone who I believe means well. What is visible is a lack of this person understanding for court procedures, procedural flow gaining momentum and timing.
Pro per must give consideration for proper case management strategy. .NG I would think is a great place to start.
I yet to meet an attorney that can stay with me on the accounting arguments and “insider” affirmative defenses. (check that – An Atty General for Fla and the head of compliance for FDIC ….they were as good as it gets). And of course NG my mentor.
But with regards to court procedures….A second year law grad and beginning litigator will likely crush me and all of you on court flow and procedural advantages.
But things like a case consolidation and lis pendants can be tough. The court has a flow and you cannot fight it. Consolidating the above matter nine months ago could never of happened and we had a TRO that ran out. Now was time to let the other matter run its course and that one we look great in.
At this point in time I thought the judge saw no reason to keep open two related matters with the lower court having seen the matter develop and seeing the defendant (Plaintiff in other action) still hanging in there.
The goal is to circumvent a forced sale in recovery and file a complaint to preserve your rights. Its just not going to get done any other way.
Cheers
M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com
Notice of Hearing: When, where, who, etc.:
“This matter will not be adjourned by the court except upon formal motion for good cause or with the specific approval of the court upon stipulation by all parties.
RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PLAINTIFF TO FILE WRITTEN RESPONSE BY DECEMBER 7, 2009
PLAINTIFF MAY APPEAR VIA TELEPHONE 262-555-5555”
Does this mean the judge is not acknowledging the motion because it is improper. Defendant appears but plaintiff “phones it in” and gets me tossed?
Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
Gain on Sale Accounting Seen as Hope to Slow Foreclosures
by MaherSoliman
Consideration is a critical element for the transfer of the assets. A gain on sale is entered by comparison to familiar cash accounting. A gain on sale will assume the seller, your lender has proper ownership prior to sale.
The date of sale should be entered by an accounting verification such as the recording date of the assignment to the trust. (attorneys will plead declaratory relief.)
Regardless, when the asset transfers it sells for good and therein is where the loan being brought to sale by a lender or affiliated registrant is impossible.
The sale of your loan is where they lose their right to pursue the security. They are competing for your home with no right to control the trustees or sheriffs sale.
They can only bid and credit back the property to themselves. But by then their interference has created a highly unethical and unlawful interference under deceptive and secretive business dealings.
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Amazing Roger,
How will it change your case?
try this-
(1) Depositor funds your loan with cash from bank.
(2) Investor buys the loans and wires the cash
———————————————–
(3) Gain on Sale
Your loan is sold Your loan is sold your loan
Your loan is sold Your loan is sold your loan
Depositor uses the cash to buy stock (Investment)
Thats the only link to the loan-stock.
The Trustee relys on the master servicer to collect one payment from the seller / for dividends payable.
Servicing is for a loan sold to provide the liquidity for stock.
Securitization does not work for homes.
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Thanks Ralph, I’m glad you enjoyed that! Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!
Ralph,
Love your new OMELET gravatar! LMAO!
4closureFraud
Oppppsss… Forgot to include my new avatar & email in my post below.
Lisa E (“Just call me Ralph.”)
ForeclosureHamlet@gmail.com
UsedKarGuy!
THANK YOU for the most uproarious laugh I’ve had in a VERY long time!
Fondly,
Lisa E (“Just call me Ralph.”)
[NG] comments: The only party capable of claiming the status of holder in due course is the investor who purchased certificates that gave him/her/it a share of a pool of assets
[MS] Neil is correct here. The loans are pooled and represent a gain on sale under GAAP. The loans sold at some time but are clearly pledged, and that’s that. But the lender ends up as a depositor holding the securities. That has pushed GAAP as far as I can imagine and good luck to Secretary Geuthner on pushing it some more.
INCOME TO MEET OVERHEAD
They “Depositor” took a net loss on sale for deductions (maybe) and books the NOL as a carry forward. For the most part it will only then turn around and purchase the underlying securities from its parent, combination or subsidiary. Gains from “whole loan” sales are likely a big part of generating cash flow from BofA to Citi to Wells (Peter to pay Paul) and there is you’re antitrust.
INVESTMENT SCHEME
The CDO certificates are nothing more than a cumulative preferred share. Carrying a Mortgage Backed Security / receivable’s here is they can book the certificates as net worth. The recognition component here for booking a sale versus debt and borrowering against assets is huge if they are really pledged. And the stock is “AAA” rated (joke) and on the balance sheet it may to bank a short term cash equivalent. With a bankrupt insulate status it can’t really benefit from the “bang for the buck” and if leveraged the certificates can increase you financial capacity (warehouse funding facilities).
FDIC and OTS
So hey, deposit or pledge (hypothecate) the equities with a FDIC member bank and now you got the capacity to make twice as many loans. This broken down ford pickup runs like a Ferrari as long as you keep a few things in mind here (before setting out to start your own “indentured trash”) trust.
· Lie about the loans to the rating agencies – Why, not because of the poor inherent quality of the loans.
· Do it so you can get the lowest cost of funds on your balance sheets core assets which are AAA certificates.
· Never get caught in a market that stops dead in its track. You never pull off the con they are trying here
· The con whereby you MUST have ongoing production to replace the loans lost in default.
· If not permitted replace the “deleted” loans otherwise lost in default, you are bankrupt…..got it!
· If old loans cannot be replaced with new loans (2002-2006) then the “Depositor” repo agreements will bury you
· Repos mean derecognition and classifying assets and will force receivership.
· If a repo agreement were enforced in order to take your home in a foreclosure, then the violations for FAS 140-3 would eliminate the “sale” component and trigger likelihood of bankruptcy also.
And consider in a default where the loan is assumed to be owned by the Trust. The holder in due course is not real. The indenture hold investors pass thru allotments merely to Sheppard the equities investment. But the investor is only secured by the receivable or cash flow from the notes and nothing tangible other than anticipated earnings. If that is so then the “shares” held by the depositor are securing the collateral as security interest for the pooled obligation and not the loans itself.
LEVERAGING ASSETS
The Depositor is called an obligor, correct? They make one monthly payment to the master servicer. By holding shares and making payments it’s like paying a dividend from an asset base that merely requires the lender to own your home. That’s called a security deed, right? Kind of falls into what MERS describes as follows-“. . . solely as the nominee for the beneficial interest in the security (plural).” When MERS says security, do they mean stock as in cumulative preferred’s or deeds and mortgages?
Loans Sold = Lender (depositors)
Receivables = Collateral
Cash flow = Investors
Look, this is not an “Italian won ton for a drunken Cop to shank.”
Understand your loan (collateral) as we know it is gone by now and the note was stamped “paid in full” at the time of sale. The collateral was replaced by the certs or stock. Consider the certificates returned to the trust in a default by the depositor. Then you can begin to see where the lender would benefit from holding off the assignment until the very last minute? Yeah, say just about three years on average. And if they were pledged to the FDIC member bank as collateral, and then why not – right? FDIC, member bank, regulators and what! Wait a minute. . . .Nooooo!
SPEAK ENGLISH
When the assignment back to the trust takes place transferring your loan from the lender (depositor) to the trust, the lender is now left exposed. Again that is why most assignments happen around the time of the notice of default.
Your lender for a moment in time has nothing folks…nothing at all, naked, got it! From the time of the late assignment to the time of the trustee sale they have nothing to grab and nothing to hold as collateral. A trustee sale is a mandatory vehicle to take back your home and that means there is no way you ever could have had a workout, modification or short sale.
How do I know? Let’s just say I do as derecognition and receivership guarantees me I am right.. . .and people (attorneys) out there are selling audits while servicers are talking trash to you when they own nothing. And some here are going back again pushing a pretender lender for a modification.
….what’s the use?
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
msoliman
The loan sold to the investor is settled by stock certificates. The Note therfore is “stamped” Paid in Full”. There is your LOST NOTE friends! Its lost to the parties just like when the Lakers lose a game.
Now we are back on track…lets get going and take this thing to a court of law.
Msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
MSoliman
I said: Forget the claims made subject to the origination. What are you auditing…? A loan the lender does not own?
Any attorney asking for an audit is comitting malpractice as
1) a modifcation cannot be done and
2) it brings the lender back into the mix as a likley interested party.
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Maher, great post. That’s all we want! Punctuation and complete sentences. Listen, bro….there’s no “selling out” here, and I’m not a “chit-chatter”. You of all people should know I believe in you. I believe in your arguments. Unfortunately, the Judge on my case does not. He never will. That’s what the word of caution is for regarding the readers of this blog. “The truth shall set you free”, that is, until the Judge says “shut up, I don’t want to hear anymore!”. YOU are the only one HERE who can break down the transactional ramifications of this “business” for people like us to understand. The “girls” at the “ForeclosureOmelet” have been going out of their way to play RALPH KRAMDEN and drive the bus over you repeatedly, not me. And I think Allan’s frustration is also justified: You are very hard to understand and often do not get the point made in an intelligible orderly way. But that’s a by product of your BRAIN THINKING FASTER THAN YOUR CHUBBY LITTLE FINGERS CAN TYPE, as often happens with highly intelligent people. And that’s not a jab, it’s a compliment. So let’s start “feeling the love” again! Okay Bro? We’re all paddling up the same river.
Msoliman
711 South Olive Street
Los Angeles, Ca 90014
November 24, 2009
Neil Garfield
Livinglies
Dear Livinglies
What has taken you so long to restore my credibility? These people attacked with no basis for claims of spam. They communicate things that are rhetorical and nothing to do with the notion time is running out and GOOGLE news in unrelated to anything!
I come to you from an “insider” perspective which has many brilliant legal minds and scholars interested in spite of the sites selective attacks on me.
Go to Livinglies and share with the public your victories in court. That’s “Spam”? I said it first and now past clients of mine are your new authority. I am an insider turned out and sharing with the community of suffering borrowers the good news. It took 25 years to compile my data that your “chit chat” viewers supplement from off WikiPedia
The faulty Securitization Platform:
(1) The loan originates by a lender under wholesale delivery methods and normal successors and assigns.
(2) The origination is then sold to a Wall Street entity, the “Trust”. Money is the consideration paid whereby the loan is sold to the investor and a wire back to the originator is booked as a “gain on sale” under GAAP for accrual accounting.
(3) The funds are then delivered back up to the Trust by the originator and equities or hybrid cumulative preferred stock certificates are delivered to the lender in exchange for the return of the cash. Under FASB and GAAP guidelines, the accountants agree there is no accounting value here other than recognition.
(4) If the loan goes into default the indentured “Trustee” for the investor will need to close the account after 60 days delinquency.
(5) Thereafter the stock or “certificates” must be delivered back to the “Trust” by the lender to close out the capital account of the investor.
* * Now the lender is left out in the cold with NOTHING! * *
Therefore the lender is a pretender as you say. They are fighting for the collateral just like you should be. But instead of fighting back you acknowledge their “debt validation” notices, fight MERS, file notices of pendency” and beg for a modification and or relief.
Then discuss other neurotic requirements as engaged by select “Moderators”. Want proof of this analysis. Try reading 1000 pages of Wiley’s GAAP and go back and look at the queer behavior of a lender in a modification discussion.
Read revised FAP under FAS 140. Past due interest is what the lender is entitled to and asking for. Everything else hinges on time and the months needed for the lender to establish its “interest” and that is not a beneficial interest.
It’s no more the lenders collateral than it is your home at time of the trust closing its books and that assignment to the trust is always late in the game…HELLO!
The assignment is late for a reason. Why it is a Realtor shows up in court to often represent the bank?
Remember I spoke to the FDIC about this for hours and the attorneys a chief of member bank compliance could not support the malfeasance they have demonstrated over the years. …and they could not respond to my questions.
California says no more attorneys and others negotiating short sales, Get it now….short sales and modifications cannot be done by a party that does not own your loan! Screwed up instruments and haphazard dates for recoding instruments are messed up for a reason.
People on this site have succeeded in losing others their homes “who sought to listen to me” but became discouraged. And it was all set up to discredit my testimony in a “Quiet Title” action which is what this web site stood for, I thought!
WAKE UP….SPAM…..YOU CALL THIS SPAM?
Msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
GOOGLE MAKES FREE CASELAW SEARCH AVAILABLE IN SCHOLAR
On the evening of November 17, Google fired (arguably) the loudest and certainly most recent salvo in the battle for free access to case law…and it apparently came as a tweet. Google has made a database of Federal and State caselaw and legal journal articles available via its Google Scholar search. The announcement was apparently made by lawyer-turned-Google-product-manager Rick Klau on Twitter.
This is a pretty comprehensive link:
http://www.netforlawyers.com/content/google-makes-free-caselaw-search-available-scholar
Free Legal Research by Google & What It Means
http://www.myshingle.com/2009/11/articles/legal-research-and-writing/free-legal-research-by-google-what-it-means/
• Posted on November 17, 2009 by Carolyn Elefant
What do I think about Google’s recent launch of a free, online legal research tool as part of Google Scholar? (disclosure: my husband works for Google, but isn’t involved with the legal research project)
Funny you should ask, because I’ve been tracking, evaluating and most of all, patiently awaiting the arrival of a functional, robust online research tool for nearly a decade. Back in 2000, I wrote my first piece for the Washington Legal Times, entitled How I Researched A Legal Brief Online for Free (now only available behind fee wall, here) And when I started MyShingle in 2002, I set up a category for “Legal Research & Writing” to track various bar associations’ adoption of Casemaker, which at that time was one of few free resources for legal research. In short, I’ve been around the block long enough to put Google’s new tool in perspective — a welcome step worth celebrating, but far from the game changer that many are predicting.
At least yet. Here are my quick thoughts:
1. Is Google’s free service functional? Google’s service isn’t the first time we’ve seen free legal research on the Internet. For years, Findlaw purported to be a source of free research and to its credit, it aggregated most publicly issued court releases. But Findlaw didn’t offer a search engine for locating the material nor did the cases include citations. Moreover, Findlaw didn’t include any federal district court law, thus severely limiting its functionality.
Google’s legal research tool is different. The coverage is broad, dating back at least 60 years and encompassing federal district court cases, bankruptcy and state and federal appellate decisions. Not surprisingly, the search engine is robust, speedy and offers several neat features, such as the ability to search by state and to see how a case has been cited previously. In addition, the cases include the appropriate Bluebook citation (e.g., 333 US 234 (1943)) and hyperlinks to other cited precedent.
One deficiency I noticed, however: I was unable to find unreported cases (or at least my one unreported case; most of mine are published). For example, a Section 1983 case of mine went up to the Fourth Circuit and was affirmed in an unreported case. Google lists the lower court decision, but the appellate decision isn’t available either through direct search or the cited previously feature. That’s potentially a problem (even though many circuits don’t permit cites to unreported cases, they can prove valuable) and I assume it will be corrected or the omission will be clarified.
Update – for more extensive functionality analysis, see Don Cruse’s Scotx Blog and Volokh (describing his vanity search).
2. So will Google replace Lexis?
Already, some bloggers like Social Media Law Student Rex Gradeless are suggesting that Google’s unique features will give LEXIS and Westlaw a run for their money.
Related posts: Rick Klau, Law on My Phone, Ernie the Attorney, Techno Esquire, Gene Lee at California Labor Law, Resource Shelf, Jim Calloway (also noting free online text search of journal articles launched by ABA). While I agree with Lawyer Market that free legal research will make going solo easier, I don’t think that free legal research is going push lawyers on the fence about solo practice over to the other side. Also, see Lex Disrputis for more interesting predictions.
Allan, Mahir etal: It’s easy to get heated up about this. In fact, if anything there is too little outrage. Let’s not go personal after each other. So just to give a little warning I’ve been ramping up the moderation — to tone down self-promotion and to tone down personal attacks. If you don’t want to get zapped as spam let’s end it here.
FOR THE RECORD, Maher & the LL Community:
Our Trickster, the consummate Master of Distortion, Deception & Projection has made several claims I’d like to address/dispute.
Maher, I
never made an apology to you,
never gave you my private telephone number,
never gave you permission to publish it or violate my privacy,
never used any but my own name, (what say you?)
never gave you permission to publish my private email to Syreeta,
never gave you permission to alter same to suit your purposes,
Compare what I wrote (below) with what you in bad faith self-servingly claim I wrote in your less than truthful postings:
“Hi, Syreeta,
I am an active participant, with many embattled homeowners, of a 21st Century foreclosure defense blogsite http://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com ; (LL).
On LL we learned last Friday through Maher Soliman that you prevailed with a dismissal with prejudice against Aurora. Would you be willing to visit our blogsite, weigh in and tell us just how you did it?
Maher Soliman (a prolific poster on LL) was ecstatic and claimed your victory was a vindication of arguments he used as an expert witness (supposedly on your case). I was surprised because I was under the impression Aurora was ‘on the ropes’ in California, and that they just aren’t bothering to show up where homeowners defend their foreclosures (with or without attorneys).
Could you share with us or with me how expert testimony helped, and if so, what was it? We are all keen to learn from Maher Soliman and to track his announced WINS!
I understand Abby has contacted you. She mentioned something about the judge in this case.
RSVP
Allan O’Brien Denchfield”
UKG represents the sentiment of many on this blog, when he wisely, credibly and courageously counsels you, “And, Maher, I know you’re listening!! Maybe you need to be a little quicker to provide evidence of your successes and control the relationships you are trying to foster.”
You claim that calling attention to your services here, trolling for new clients “THAT IS NOT OUR STYLE.
OUR INFO IS FREEEEEEE”
Prove it!
Prove all of it!
Show us what ya got!
“BE NICE TO PEOPLE . . . . WE ALL TRY TO HELP”
“Therapy, Brother.”
Let’s move on Maher. Give that big, easily-bruised ego a rest. We all have on our collective plates more important matters than the juvenile prattling of a disturbed defensive soul. We’ve got bigger fish to fry, don’t you agree?
HAPPY THANKSGIVING, ALL
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
This is pretty serious stuff we’re engaged in. It isn’t “life or death”, but it’s the next biggest thing. If you’re new here and just getting your feet wet, PUT THIS IN THE FOREFRONT OF YOUR THINKING: A HOUSE IS A BIG…….LIABILITY. Yes, it’s your home. I love my home. My family loves the house, too. BUT IT’S A ONLY A HOUSE, AND A LIABILITY! If the house was gone tomorrow, there would still be other, more important things in your life…..your wife, your children, your career, your health. With or without the house, your life will go on. It will just go on at a different address. In a different house. This is a fact. Don’t forget it. (Remember how easy life was when we were renters?)
But…hey! That’s easy for me to say! Mr. No Money Down, rough credit, started out with nuthin’ and still has most of it! Yeah, that’s right! SUBPRIME. I only bought because it was cheaper than renting, or at least, I thought it would be BETTER than renting. In other words, no skin in the game. Those of you out there, and you know who you are, have an opportunity. If you got shafted on your mortgage, you fell behind, you found out you got screwed at the closing table like everybody else, WELCOME ABOARD. Get mad, and get even. If getting even means living in your house for FREE for one year, three years, ELEVEN YEARS, SO BE IT! But don’t let this battle cloud your judgment or lead you to make bad decisions. Desperation will get the better of you if you let this take up too big a piece of your life. Your family needs you, too, not just the roof over their heads. Believe me, if they had to choose between you OR the house, they would pick YOU! Love your spouse and kids FIRST, please.
Now many other people, those snobby PRIME customers (just kidding, gotcha!) with all that equity and good credit and 401k’s and platinum cards, now THEY have something worth fighting for, more than you, right? The house was in the family for years, they put in a pool, they put big cash down (only to have the equity evaporate overnight), they have to fight their brains out , and loose their sanity or the house, or both, right? WRONG!
We are all in the same boat. Rich, poor, Prime, subprime, it doesn’t matter. When the LIABILITY or THE BATTLE begins to take away YOUR quality of life, YOUR relationship with YOUR family, or YOUR ability to make a living, then you must make a decision.
My first post was August of last year and I came in here crying with “I can’t pay-waahhhh, I need help-waahhhh, find me a lawyer-waahhh! what do I do-waahhh?” just like everyone else starts out. It’s natural. We start out thinking like victims, and before you know it, we’re all PERRY MASON (or L.A. Law for you younger folks)! Now, we think we know something, and then we learn some more. Now, were HUNGRY. HUNGRY FOR KNOWLEDGE. We seek out new avenues for guidance, look for the magic piece of case law that fits our situation and,,,,,,,,wow, that’s hard!
You know you have a case, it’s plain as day! You go to court a couple of times, the judge busts your balls and pay’s no attention and all of a sudden, you’re DESPERATE! Now, you have lost the ability to think rationally.
Please, take a little time to inventory what you have going.
That’s all. Don’t get tricked into believing that KNOWLEDGE IS THE POWER TO WIN IN COURT! THE LAW IS THE POWER TO WIN IN COURT. And, it’s DIFFERENT in every State of the Union! That’s why attorney’s are licensed to practice State by State.
And when you start paying for knowledge that other people have, knowledge obtained either by training, education, experience, or licensure, do not give of your funds easily! Seek out the referral of a satisfied client or customer. That should be easy to produce if the purveyor of such knowledge is operating in an ethical fashion.
Take the time to learn what causes of action you have, bring those causes of action against the proper party, and find the laws that were broken in the course of your particular situation. Once you have done that, you can approach an attorney and ask for his help. And pay him a fee. If you are indeed CONFIDENT in his abilities and ethics.
Sorry I write so much. Now go to sleep!
WELL, I ACCEPT THE APOLOGY ALLAN. . .and thanks for giving me your number to counsel you…no problem
USE YOUR REAL NAME NEXT TIME AND
BE NICE TO PEOPLE . . . . WE ALL TRY TO HELP.
THERE WAS AN ATTORNEY HERE AND HE ..
DID USE OUR SITE FOR BUSINESS. HE IS
GONE NOW AND THAT IS NOT OUR STYLE.
OUR INFO IS FREEEEEEE -Call Allan Denchfield at 1-617-308-5281 and tell Hi , help anything but NOT to remain mean spirited … Therapy Brother……MSoliman
And, Maher, I know you’re listening!! Maybe you need to be a little quicker to provide evidence of your successes and control the relationships you are trying to foster. —————————sorry comment
Roger ..??? Oh Nooooooo! No way—you sold out brother…no way….chit chatters!!!!!!!!!!!
LIVING LIES – DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT CALL ME – JUST LET ME POST IN PEACE.
No call no calls no spam no no hatred…..I have posted the decisions and that’s enough. About ten new ones since you and I hooked up a year ago.
Neil …your health and wealth brother…hope all is good!
Peace
Thanks, UKG for your responsible CAVEAT EMPTOR. You’ve written a very balanced response to my expressed concern. Feel free to elaborate further on HOW M. Soliman helped you. Details will help the court of public opinion look more favorably on his otherwise unsubstantiated claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE A MAN, you ask, “Why are you so obsessed with discredited m. soliman.” You’re the one claims he’s discredited. He’s a fine chap, as all can see. Above reproach, as is patently evident.
Tell me what are the chances that your postings follow by a mere minute the postings of your alter ego M.Soliman, dba ‘EXPERT’? Are you the twin Janus faces of the same mountebank? Or are you the nine-headed Hydra of the poisonous breath, guardian of the Underworld? Hmmmm, how many heads remain to be lopped off? Anybody want to take on such a Herculean labor?
“IT IS ABOUT WINNING” you claim, but we here have yet to see one word of what strategy is employed by this vaunted expert, as if it were a closely held trade secret, available only to those willing to part with their gelt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXPERT, before you invite the discerning folks here to contact me for my interpretation of what is claimed your “winning approach,” come sit here by me, fill me in, spill the beans, give me an outline, strategy or a battle plan to work from. Anything! I’ve been asking for a year now. Anything!
Once you do that, I guarantee you I’ll be “causing more inquiries and MORE business than expert.witness is willing to accept.” Who has the luxury nowadays of turning away business, especially if it is honestly procured?
Can somebody explain what the following means? “B e M o v ed @ A O L . c o m, This type of information you deliver seeks to convolute jurisdiction and arguments to gain some sort of advantage.” What?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re 100% right, THE A MAN! “WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE NEGATIVE WHEN WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST THE BANKS.” I’m glad you recognize that. Neither can we afford to be opaque, self-serving, or loose with the truth.
“PLEASE WRITE GOOD AND POSITIVE THINGS AND LEAVE THE NEGATIVE OUT,” isn’t that line taken straight out of the current sci fi series ‘V’? Isn’t that what the Queen Bee corruptly ‘requests’ of the journalist covering her stealth takeover of his world?
ALLAN
B e M o v ed @ A O L . c o m
Dear Allan or what ever you name is. Why are you so obsessed with discredited m. soliman. Its not about if you like his style or not. IT IS ABOUT WINNING. USED KAR GUY WROTE A POSITVE CONSTRUSTIVE COMMENT ON HOW M. SOLIMAN HAS HELPED HIM. WHY ARE YO BEING SO NEGATIVE? . PLEASE WRITE GOOD AND POSITIVE THINGS AND LEAVE THE NEGATIVE OUT. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE NEGATIVE WHEN WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST THE BANKS.
B e M o v ed @ A O L . c o m, This type of information you deliver seeks to convolute jurisdiction and arguments to gain some sort of advantage. And maybe its back fireing. It is causing more inquiries and MORE business than expert.witness is willing to accept.
If livinglies.com readers are interested in my thinking soley because it is a winning approach then PLEASE contact “bemoved@AOL.com” for his interpretation of how your needs really can be best satisfied.
Otherwise, do not use my comments as a solicitation. Use them because they ALLOW ATTORNEYS to win cases.
Now, going forward we dont need to address this issue anymore, correct?
Thanks and God Bless
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Hello Allan. Hope this post finds you happy and healthy! I want turkey for Thanksgiving, but I lost the coin toss and this year, it’s gonna be a DUCK! I hope you all know that I consider many here as friends although we have never met. You, Allan, personally shared your discovery documents with me, which I used as a template and to some degree of success. Thanks again for that! I am grateful for the writings and expertise provided by many here on the website. As I have understood it, the site was originated in an effort to share the experience, knowledge, and information that, heretofore, has been unavailable to all of us. Thank GOD for Neil Garfield and his ambition to give of himself so others may survive this “catastrophe”.
That said, the site should not be used to troll for desperate people seeking answers to questions upon which those with a higher level of understanding can easily SCHMOOZE someone out of their money. I may BE a schnook. I may have been “taken”. I don’t know. I am a pretty trusting guy (considering I’m in a business where people lie to me all day long). The “product” I received from Maher had, of course, some grammatical errors. I incorporated it as best I could into my proposed finding of facts. I don’t know if it helped. As I lost my case, (up to this point, with a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, still not entered into the record, with that Motion for Reconsideration pending) regardless of the evidence presented, I don’t blame anyone other than myself. I will say that Maher spent quite a bit of time with me on the phone, pointed me in directions that led me to greater understanding, and, yeah, he got some money out of me at the end. Is he here on this website giving unconditionally of himself for the greater good? I think not. But, I gotta tell you, I like the guy! We talked like we knew each other for years. Was that just the interaction of two “salesmen” enjoying each others shtick? Well, maybe it was. Who knows? I would, however, caution everyone to let your ATTORNEY contract for his services (if needed) and if he sticks it to the attorney, then the attorney will take recourse where applicable. I will certainly not recommend that people start sending checks to Maher because he seems to know a lot about the topic at hand. As pro-se defendants, we are not equipped to even present the “evidence” provided by outside third party “professionals”, much less determine what is advantageous to our cases as we present those observations to an ill-informed (or willingly complicit) judiciary.
And, Maher, I know you’re listening!! Maybe you need to be a little quicker to provide evidence of your successes and control the relationships you are trying to foster. I know you still have to make a living, but the people here should not be your target market. You should be working your magic through assistance to counsel. I know that is what you profess to be doing. In hindsight, the way you are approaching it here may not be, let’s see, how can I say it, Kosher? I know you can provide some really meaningful background info. You are the JURIS PRO, from what I have seen. You should make sure that you don’t put yourself in an uncomfortable position, especially here.
So remember, everyone: JAUNDICED EYE! REMAIN A SKEPTIC UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES THEIR WORTH! Don’t BUY what you don’t NEED! Got it?
VOID CLAIMS STOP LENDER FORECLOSURES
By MSoliman
The notices we review concerning your files are a reach and difficult to ascertain as to authenticity or integrity for to the dates shown therein.
Can a foreclosure sale have any effect on the defendant subject to a sale having transpired and where proven to be obtained after improper or fraudulent service, or resulting in arguments that lack of jurisdiction over the defendant?
Void judgments (CCP 473(d)).
The court may, on its own motion or the motion of either party, set aside any void judgment or order.
A judgment or order may be void if the issuing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, if the judgment or order granted relief that the court had no power to grant, or if the judgment was procured by fraud on the court.
I believe the following pertains to the defendant and is justified for arguing the sale is subject to deceptive practices and unlawful estoppels, misjoinder amongst parties unknown thereby causing the transfer to be categorized as void.
expert.witness@live.com
UKG,
I, for one, hope that you WILL prevail in your Motion to Reconsider. Who among us wouldn’t wish this for a fellow embattled homeowner? Does that mean you lost this round and are asking the court to reconsider?
You consoled Maher, “Sorry to hear about your calamity.” We are all sorry that calamity follows him it seems everywhere. Perhaps he brings it upon himself? The sad history and exhibited pathology we’ve seen seems to confirm this. You’ll probably disagree.
Next, you advise, “I would encourage everyone to look carefully with a “jaundiced eye”, as you can no longer take people at “face value”. That prescription proves very on spot, thank you.
You conclude, “But as I said to you privately, I appreciate your advice, perspective, and the knowledge you have passed on to me. Best Regards! UKG” We can all appreciate his advice, no matter how dysfunctionally garbled, his perspective and his supposed knowledge, were he truthful, forthcoming, not so defensively ready with his ad hominem attacks.
The spirit of LivingLies, to my way of seeing, is that folks are here to help one another and educate those with access to levers of power. Your friend, on the other hand, seems to troll here for newby ‘clients,’ pooh-pooh the open forum and cutting edge ideas that surface here under Neil’s guiding hand, and make claims that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Who can tolerate or condone such egregious head games?
We can understand why your loyalties may lie with him, if he has privately advanced your case. If he has, care to share? That’s what we do here. He makes many claims, the kind a merchant makes, but opaquely provides few, if any, details. Maybe you can fill us in?
Allan
B e M o v ed @ A O L . c o m
Hey Maher! How are you? I have to give you a call soon. Just to say “Hi!” and “Thanks”. I think you’re right. I go in front of the Judge again on Dec 18 (motion to reconsider). I told you the first lawyer from Litchfield-Cavo QUIT, and now a junior attorney is handling the case. I sent him an e-mail and asked him if he was covered by the firm’s Directors and Officers policy, because, as they proceed, they are INDEED violating Sarbannes/Oxley. No answer as of yet. Hmmmmmm.
I don’t think Wells will want to “win” this case and then have all my pleadings and motions end up in the public record. There is too much there that they want to hide. As always, many thanks. Sorry to hear about your calamity. I would encourage everyone to look carefully with a “jaundiced eye”, as you can no longer take people at “face value”. But as I said to you privately, I appreciate your advice, perspective, and the knowledge you have passed on to me. Best Regards! UKG
Breaking News & Viewpoints:
Fink on Mortgage Securitization
Nov. 10, 2009
In the latest Viewpoints Breakfast series, Laurence Fink, Chairman and CEO of BlackRock Inc. discusses how he made his name with the collateralized mortgage security and how its still a good idea.
“IT WAS NOT STRUCTURE (SECURITIZATION) THAT DID NOT WORK . . . IT WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OR PROGRAMS BEING OFFERED AND PROCESS THAT WAS FLAWED.”
What does that tell you?
MSoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
To: usedkarguy
Fr: MSoliman
Something tells me it’s over soon.
You will prevail!
MSoliman
No one deserves it more.
Mountain View, California
THANKS COUNSEL!
WOW. MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE ARE NOT PAYING THEIR MORTGAGES AND ARE WALKING AWAY FROM LOANS. ARENT WE ALL IN BANKRUPTCY OR NEAR BANKRUPTCY
WALT DISNEY FRANCIS FORD COPOLLA BUFFALO BILL MILTON HERSHEY (ABBY WE CANT EAT HERSHEY CHOCOLATE BARS ) HJ HEINZ (KETCHUP) BURT REYNOLDS AND HENRY FORD WENT BANKRUPT
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE GONE BANKRUPT.
ABBY ARE YOU CALLING EVERYBODY WHO GETS SUED OR IN BANKRUPTCY A PERSON NOT TO BE TRUSTED?
Abby slander and defamation of carachter are serious crimes.
http://noneca217.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
We are trying to figure this all out.
WOW. I AM NOT MAHER SOLIMAN.
STOP BEING A PLAYER HATER.
Maher-we know you are ‘The A Man’….creating another dba blog name!!
Maher-you are the one selling your services on this website.
When folks, other than myself, ask you to name some of your successes, you post the case info.
Thus, naturally, anyone who is considering using your services is going to go and check.
For some reason(s) some folks are not convinced you offer good, solid services.
There are doubts.
Judicial interference? Lol…..
Hey Abby, Heres my info, id like a word with you when you get a chance, thanks fifita77@att.net
and, ABBY, why don’t you go play on your own website?
I saw an ad for a “foreclosure specialist”. Job description is as follows:
RESPONSIBILITIES:
– Negotiating short sales (and other options) for homes going into foreclosure
– Will work directly with realtors and homeowners
– Must be able to explain every step of the process in detail, follow up regularly and document calls
– Primarily making outbound calls or return calls to customers
Sales/Negotiation:
– You will be the decision maker on each file, you are assessing property values, risk to investors, etc
– Must be able to find a deal that works for the client and the realtor/homeowner
– Must possess very strong skills in communication, sales/negotiation, analytical thinking, organization, attention to detail
– Ability to speak with people from all backgrounds and knowledge levels
– Experience in an industry that is accustomed to closing deals and working towards goals with incentives is helpful: realtors, title companies, insurance, mortgage underwriter/originator etc.
– Cannot be afraid to negotiate
– Analytical thinking
– Organized and detail orientated
– Must be flexible, rules and processes can/do change regularly.
– Willing to do work again as some deals can fall through
**If you are an active realtor, you must be able and willing to suspend your real estate license.
Now, I wonder….. why would you have to give up your license? Could it be that you would be violating the ethical standards of a licensed professional? This is a banking job? The ad is placed through a headhunter. Client confidential. If you have to include the title companies in the negotiation, is that your evidence of tainted title via the fraudulent conveyance of the note and deed of trust? Isn’t that like an anti-trust thing, too? How F__________g blatant. I won’t swear. I just did two hours ago. How do you convey rage and anger on computer without swearing?????? It also sounds like everyone is there to make money on the deal— except the homeowner!! He’s the guy getting his home stolen out from under him while they conduct a sham real estate “transaction”. Isn’t this where the violation of the REMIC tax laws come into play? The investors and banks aren’t making money on the interest streams, they’re pocketing the insurance proceeds AND the HOUSE! Gotta make you feel good at the end of the day, knowing you just torched some family’s credit and made them homeless! Now that’s what I call “job satisfaction”.
ABBY STOP BEING A PLAYER HATER.
MAHER SOLIMAN NEVER SAID HE WAS AN ATTORNEY.
MAHER SOLIMAN NEVER SAID HE DOES LOAN MODIFICATIONS
MAHER GOT EXCITED THAT HIS CLIENT WON A CASE IN CALIFORNIA. SO WHAT?
ABBY ARE YOU AN OWNER OF A HOUSE OR PROPERTY?
ABBY THE PLAYER HATER.
Maher-we are so not impressed! So NOT afraid of you Blah Blah!!
If anyone is doing judicial interference it is you!! By posting to call you that you will play the recording of your happy client from the court house steps.
By you claiming an Aurora victory for Ms. Corbitt in the UD case and posting the case number etc and where to go to locate the case information.
Did you get her permission, since she is your client, but only for your ‘expert’ witness services and NOT any attorney services, to publicly ‘advertise’ her situation??
Did you?
Doubt it.
MAHER SOLIMAN RULES. .HE IS THE #1 EXPERT WITNESS. HAS NEIL GARFIELD BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ANY WINS IN CALIFORNIA? and if so please share with us. Neil Garfield is a walking Angel and is a riteous man. SOLIMAN WORKS WITH ATTORNEYS THAT GET IT. SOLIMAN TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. HE CALLS THE PRETENDER LENDERS BLUFF.
HE IS NOT AFRAID TO TAKE ON THE BIG BAD WOLF (THE BIG BANKS THAT HAVE COMMITED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)
IT IS ONE THING TO TAKE ON AND BLUFF BUSINESS PEOPLE BUT TO TAKE ON UNSOPHISTICATED AND THE WEAK IN SUCH A LARGE SCALE IS LIKE THE NAZIS WHO KILLED (economic murder) INNOCENT WOMAN AND CHILDREN). OR LIKE AL QUAEDA THAT TARGETS INNOCENT WOMAN AND CHILDREN. DISPLACEING PEOPLE IN SUCH A LARGE SCALE CAN BE EQUATED TO ETHNIC CLEANSING (loosing houses retirement investments in such a large scale).
by msoliman
here it is ….a real amazing opportunity to look into the world of a genuine set of trouble makers. This moron actually thinks anyone with an Aurora loan is an automatic winner.
Aurora, counsel Jaime Siedler (a business contact of mine) has got wind of this unfair and unnecessary email considered judicial interference and now we have a name and details for our case pending for defamation and other allegations of tortous interference with an experts testimoney
You’ll love this one – please read!
————————————————————————-
From: bemoved@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:18 -0500
To:
Subject: CONGRATULATIONS on your Friday the 13th
Good Luck on your UD case
Hi, Syreeta,
I am an active participant, with many embattled homeowners, of a 21st Century foreclosure defense blogsite http://www.LivingLies.WordPress.com (LL).
On LL we learned last Friday through Maher Soliman that you prevailed with a dismissal with prejudice against Aurora. Would you be willing to visit our blogsite, weigh in and tell us just how you did it?
Maher Soliman (a brilliant poster on LL) was ecstatic and claimed your victory was a vindication of arguments he used as an expert witness (supposedly on your case).
I was surprised because I was under the impression Aurora was ‘on the ropes’ in California, and that they just aren’t bothering to show up where homeowners defend their foreclosures (with or without attorneys).Could you share with us or with me how expert testimony helped, and if so, what was it?
(Mr. Garfield , me) we are all keen to learn from Maher Soliman . . . track his announced WINS (while we remain clueless!
————– look at this trash —————————
I understand Abby has contacted you. She mentioned something about the judge in this case.
RSVP
Allan O’Brien Denchfield
Tim/Cal–if you have Judge Beeman in Solano, she felt he was a very fair/good judge.
She’d also heard that about him prior.
Abby, Good Info, I was actually going to call her myself. I will have my 3rd ud trial this thursday at the same courthouse. Ill keep you guys updated. Thank God for this website!!!!!
Deontos-had lengthy conversation with S. Corbitt about the Solano UD case.
She had an attorney not affiliated with M. Soliman.
She felt that there were other factors the judge made his decision on, such as the opposing attorneys not ever showing up in court at all. She felt the judge was
not happy with that.
Maher did ‘write’ a paper as an expert witness.
She did have Maher do an audit, but she had to travel from northern california down to LA to see him & spend a great deal of time with him.
Maher did not make any appearance in the court proceedings.
She is now pro se in her larger mortgage related case.
She said the opposing counsel in the U.D. can still appeal.
Her and I will be meeting for coffee.
Abby regarding:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/emergency-workshop-in-santa-monica-94/#comment-28816
Thank you! I will be very interested in the Case File
arguments. Will anxiously look forward to reviewing
what you discover. Her WIN in Solano could perhaps
open a door for relief in No. Calif. Superior Courts.
Thanks again.
Deontos-
I’ll try to swing by Solano court house to view the case files on the Corbitt case (UD). She also has another case file FCS033344 filed in the same court.
I’ve also put in a call to this lady.
REPOST ….1ST Attempt never published
Deontos, on November 13th, 2009 at 5:52 pm Said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Maher,
Congratulations!
I wish I could see the actual Case File so I could read
all the arguments. I did review as best I could the online
information. So what happens, I mean legally from here?
She has WON the UD phase. Does she file for “quiet
title”?
Or does this mean events evolve as you stated:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-28189
———–
Also You said……..
** We Forgive those out to prove my arguments wrong ……..Deontos…”
Sir,
I am trying to learn from everyone here before my doomsday
overtakes me. I don’t always understand what you’re saying,
I believe that is due to my lack of knowledge in a world in which
you are well apprised. If I ask questions or wish to see
documentation it is because I am making an INTENSE effort to
educate myself. Again I say thank you …this is really good news
to see people making headway.
On just a lighter note:
A couple of sayings and a contortion……
Movie Quote: “Don’t shoot me I’m just the piano player…!”
You said: “Grasshopper; the pebbles are there four you to
snatch from the judges hand.”
I say: “Hey! Don’t shoot me! Master, I’m just a grasshopper
trying to learn what a pebble is.”
===============================================
Report Selection Criteria
Case ID: VCM104344
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:
Case Description
Case ID: VCM104344 –
AURORA LOAN SERVICES V. CORBITT, SYREETA
Filing Date: Monday , January 05th, 2009
Type: UD – Unlawful Detainer
Status: DISMISSED – CASE DISMISSED
Related Cases
No related cases were found.
13-NOV-2009
08:30 AM CASE DISMISSED
Entry: with prejudice
http://courtconnect.solanocourts.com/courtconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=&case_id=VCM104344&begin_date=&end_date=
Press Release:LOS ANGLES, CA NOVEMBER 13TH 2009
WORD JUST IN – SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO
“WE WON WE WON” WITH PRJUDICE
CORBITT VS AURORA VCM104344
EVERYONE JOIN US IN CELEBRATION
** We Forgive those out to prove my arguments wrong**
[Deontos, Abby, AOL fool, Mr. Dan, Rip Off report and Mas …SJ Attorney ]
WE WON – JUST IN ** WE WON DECISION FINAL
Won with prejudice …..Won in Court – it’s over for Corbitt v Aurora Case Closed ….Over Homeowner will never leave this home again….Over
expert.witness@live.com
Ph 213-627-2324
Calll to hear the recorded message from the court house of Plaintiff screaming out
“We won We won….. its over case wrongful foreclosure We won!expert.witness@live.com
Ph 213-627-2324
God Bless
MSOLIMAN
Maher–re: BeMoved etc.
I thought you provided the court case names for anyone who wanted to inquire?
Are not court records, filings and case dispositions, even eviction writs, in the public domain for all to view?
Why are you threatening folks with defamation and libel?
Maher-regarding your 4:01PM posting which starts with your words “great earlier discussion…’
Could you please cite your source.
This is a very old article.
Thx
Come on people- start writing you leaders and stop complaining….fight damn it
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
Member of Congress
Washington, D.C., Office:
2330 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1766
Fax: (202) 226-0350
Dear Maher:
Knowing you interest in housing issues, I want to take this opportunity to update you with my views on the foreclosure crisis, FHA loan limits and down payment assistance.
I strongly believe that FHA-backing of mortgages is one of the most significant steps we can take to address the current foreclosure crisis. As you are aware, while the Economic Stimulus Act temporarily increased the FHA-insurable loan limit to $729,000, if further action is not taken, the limit will fall to $362,000 at the end of this year. This level is far too low to make a difference in California where the cost of a home greatly exceeds the national average.
I continue to support down payment assistance programs that allow low-income families to afford decent housing without have to sacrifice other essentials like food, clothing, healthcare, or a child’s education. Families should not be forced to choose between these basic needs when budgets are tight.
You will be pleased to know that on May 8, 2008, I voted in support of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221), which was signed by the President and became public law on July 30, 2008 . This housing stimulus includes an expansion of the FHA program, and also permanently raises the FHA loan limits. You may be assured that as your representative in Congress and as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on transportation , Housing and Urban Development with funding jurisdiction over housing programs, I will continue to represent your views as Congress continues to take steps to help homeowners and homebuyers avoid foreclosure.
Once again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this and on other issues of importance to our community, our state, and our nation.
Sincerely
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
Member of Congress
Sign up for periodic e-mail updates from Congresswoman Roybal-Allard at http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard
——————————————-
SPEAKING ABOUT FRAUD
November 9th 2009 4:55 AM PST
By M.Soliman
First ; Talk about BeMoved, AOL and fraud. All parties will use his public comments to form basis for defamation and a libel suit immediatly in superior court. This is unfair to a borrowers privacy and misleading a court clerk in a disturbing matter. This should be good as the reader caused tortous interference with an attorney client privlidge. Yes…what I (we) have been told would happen and have been waiting for….and waiting for. Mis statement of facts, libelous comments and intent to inflict pain and suffering, . . interference while case is subject to appeal….Caution forewarned and issued cease and desist….ON APPEAL INQUIRY .Superior Court Case
It must stop and it will. Moving on ….(we’ll keep you posted) ….
There is a science to looking at the instruments used for recorded notices…or maybe it’s an art? Anyway. What a roll we are on as fraud is running out of control. Who you ask? You name it.
Hers a bit of advice.
The equipment or software used to print the notices or instruments (CA) is approved for use in banks and popular with mortgage bankers.
The software cannot be altered without the person having clearance. He / she would enter the system in order to alter a document and the revision is there for eternity after making the changes.
Thereafter the person who made the changes is on record as the last to alter a preprinted form. Why would they ever need to change a pre-printed form used for recording?
One more thing. The biggest tips I can give you with respect to recorded instrument used to foreclose are as follows:
See your notices
(1) Default,
(2) Assignment and
(3) Substitution
They are (almost) always printed in a set. Forget MERS here for a second as the documents are printed by the originator or successors and assigns (Depositor).
There is never any need to print any of the three documents separate let alone on a different date.
The foreclosure specialist’s are good, very good [and never the hit of a party…] but they do know what they are doing!
I believe the CA civil code 2923.5 and Obama Plan are causing these opportunists to “back date”. Last minute and when you back date the succession of dates becomes vulnerable.
These foreclosure specialists left over from the crash are lucky to have jobs and do as they are told. I am sure the trustees are telling them “rescind or revise, it’s up to you”?
Remember also, an altered instrument for recording in VOID or VOIDABLE I don’t care what you say about jurisdiction! Trust me on this one as case law is abundant.
———————————-
We have a case right now whereby I will testify (if they don’t come back with a settlement). I opine it’s a “voidable” claim and subject solely to damages as the property sold to a 3rd party animal. Void you win the home back and voidable you lose (right to reclaim your home back).
It should be a monster settlement / claim and its happening to a great guy (plaintiff). We have a document that was technically drawn on 12/18/2009. That is verified. Problem is the document is dated by hand and endorsed the same day by the notary as of 12/08/2009. . . 10 days prior to being printed?
I would move to case precedent and say every foreclosure for this lender as of the date of this claim may be grounds for rescission. Is there an attorney in the house?
MSoliman . . . . .
Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities, contains criteria that restrict “sale accounting” on transferred financial assets when there is a concurrent purchase agreement.
With so much focus on the overburdened American homeowner suffering in default, little discussion on revamping the mortgage sector of the economy is evident.
This notion presupposes a desperate need to vacate the prospect of the willingness for rouge lenders to exist. Yielding to outrageous synthetic affordability with respect to debt and housing, there now come calls for more serious enforcement against criminal conduct. Such escalated policing of consumers and lenders should isolate the heftiest sentencing scaled to certain criteria for constituting unimaginable access to debt.
Debt leveraged solely to accommodate earnings acquired from the purchase and sale of real property at closing is not compensation at all.
The premise is for fiscal safeguards to be seen as impenetrable ensuring economic survival free of radical shifts and downswings.
My gut tells me not long gone are the days of a criminal mindset culminating with a opportunistic borrower lender cohabitation. Tax payers are equally vigilant in seeking to rid society of the category of excess tariffs due to bail out of a criminal borrower mindset.
If not now then when is it time to bring to the forefront of this dilemma and a willingness to punish the perpetrators?
Malfeasant lending by intoxicated institutions at the expense of shareholder and tax payer bailouts are on target for isolating only one problem piece of this respectable Chinese puzzle. The white collar profile or part time dental assistant that brazenly purchase a fourth or fifth property are equally fit to join bank management in expanding our states correctional holding capacity and prison populations.
A scale for both indecent and vile acts towards the economy will no more safeguard the shank delusions of the attorney. Make accountable the warped and corrosive mind of the dental hygienist and Trump Real Estate grad turned property owner.
No one shall be insulated from the call to justice cause by capital waste and fraud. Let these night lurking intestinal worms be driven out and into the light. Like Megan’s law, habitual criminal offenses will label the mortgage fraud perpetrators, legal buffoons and financial morons of society.
Let this effect on the public be blind to occupation and status. Therefore no professional, union member, trade group or white collar persons may escape the retribution of a societies call for registration after sentencing and time spent incarcerated.
Mortgage debt lawlessness and accountability shall have no regard for race religion and creed.
Today’s culprit shall be the targets and hopefully the last of its kind. Let this state show it’s will for they shall grow weary and we will set by example the call to sanity and a safer economic society
great earlier discussion . . ..
What is now beginning to surface are the losses attributed to the massive amount of fraud that mortgage originators created and passed on to Freddie Mac with two specific types of origination fraud know as “Double-Funding”, “Double Selling” or “Double Warehousing” fraud and Assignment Fraud.
“Double-Funding” involves a mortgage originator sending simultaneous funding requests for the same loan to two different warehouse lenders. Both warehouse lenders, unaware of each other, would send funding for the loan to the title companies specified by the mortgage originator. The mortgage originator then disburses the money from one lender to the borrower, while directing the title company to wire the money received from the other lender to mortgage originator’s bank account.
The mortgage originators then provide fabricated mortgage documents to the warehouse lenders that falsely represented that the lender’s funds had, in fact, been used to finance borrower loans.
Assignment Fraud involves modifications to the original loan where the name of the bank who actually owns the note is changed on execution of the Loan Modification Agreement. The problem with these “modifications” (actually new loans with new “lenders”) is that the old loans remain unaffected. The existing cloud on title to the property, the mortgage deed (or deed of trust), the note, the obligation, the purported assignments etc. is being compounded by attempts to allow impostors to foreclose on the mortgage, collect on the note, modify the loan, or approve a short sale. The time bomb is title where securitized loans were recorded, foreclosed, modified or sold. The parties (other than the borrower and possibly the Trustee on the Deed of Trust) had actual knowledge that the “lender” was not the Lender, the terms of the obligation were already changed at the time of closing, the appraisal was false, the underwriting was negligent or fraudulent, the Good Faith Estimate was by definition rendered neither in good faith nor even close to an accurate estimate, and the list goes on and on.
In determining whether a particular loan is part of a “double-funding” or “double-selling” scheme, examiners and forensic accountants should look for as evidence that a mortgage originator is engaging in this scheme and participating in a pattern of deception, forgery and fraud. Once demonstrated, these indicators inevitably point to fraudulent affidavits and assignments of mortgages filed in the public records.
As you examine your loan documents you should be looking for the following:
1. Loan originators, servicers and their lawyers forge documents with “squiggle marks” that are not the marks, initials or signatures of the actual officer that is notarized to be the signatory.
2. Signature, initials or “squiggle marks” differ for the same signatory from document to document.
3. Squiggle marks and full signatures that are diametrically opposed to the known signature of the signatory.
4. Pre-stamped assignments and notary signatures on assignments, affidavits and proof of claims.
5. Back-dating of dates on assignments and signatures of officers dating years after either a company is no longer in business or the officers are no longer with the company
In the Plaintiffs matter we are pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to allege generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity, and when so made the party pleading the performance or occurrence shall on the trial establish the facts showing such performance or occurrence.
In pleading a judgment or other determination of a court or officer of special jurisdiction, it is not necessary to state the facts conferring jurisdiction, but such judgment or determination may be stated to have been duly given or made. If such allegation is controverter, the party pleading is bound to establish on the trial the facts conferring jurisdiction.
In pleading a private statute, or a right derived there from, it is sufficient to refer to such statute by its title and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof.
LIBEL OR SLANDER ACTION.
In an action for libel or slander it shall not be necessary to state in the complaint any extrinsic facts for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter out of which the cause of action arose; but it shall be sufficient to state generally that the same was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff. If such allegation is controverter, the plaintiff shall be bound to establish on the trial that it was so published or spoken. In the answer, the defendant may allege both the truth of the matter charged as defamatory, and any mitigating circumstances, to reduce the amount of damages, and whether the defendant proves the justification or not, the defendant may give in evidence the mitigating circumstances.
Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to allege that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.
Recitals and negative pregnants. No allegations in a pleading shall be held insufficient on the grounds that they are pled by way of recital rather than alleged directly. No denial shall be treated as an admission on the ground that it contains a negative pregnant.
Fictitious parties. When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in a pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when such partys true name is discovered, the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name.
Designation of unknown heirs in actions relating to property. When the heirs of any deceased person are proper parties defendant to any action relating to property in this state, and the names and residences of such heirs are unknown, they may be proceeded against under the name and title of the unknown heirs of the deceased.
Designation of unknown persons. In any action to determine any adverse claim, estate, lien, or interest in property, or to quiet title to property, the plaintiff may include as a defendant in such action, and insert in the title thereof, in addition to the names of such persons or parties as appear of record to have, and other persons or parties who are known to have, some title, claim, estate, lien, or interest in the property in controversy, the following: Also all other persons or parties unknown claiming any right, title, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint herein. [CCP 12/2/78]. The matter will go before a court and unlawful detainer hearing where the jurisdiction is highly limited for arguments regarding the ownership and title. The matter of a UD is confined to jurisdiction with little if any concerns for the causes of action brought in a grievance complaint better suited for another court’s jurisdiction.
Consent judgment, a final, binding judgment in a case in which both parties agree, by stipulation, to a particular outcome.
Declaratory judgment, a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute
Default judgment, a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons.
Summary judgment, a legal term which means that a court has made a determination without a full trial.
Vacated judgment, the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court.
The expert can document various lengthy history of training and working exclusively at an institutional level in subprime lending was mostly spent as a secondary trader. I now work as an Expert.Witness who appraises a case and testifies in court. I jumped ship in 2003 wrongly thinking the market would soon crash. Little did I know what the industry would resort to in order to keep the lies alive? Hundreds of thousands of American homeowners face losing their homes due to unaffordable loans they received.
The breadth and depth of experience allows for a unique perspective for sharing with the public my views certain procedural knowledge that offers insight into the procedural defects seen to exist from one lender to another the parties consistent procedural must be limited to facts as I try to steer way from any bias. In this market that is hard.
My views and experiences on the subject of foreclosure assume you’ll need an attorney. I can merely make a distinction for you case from the presence of unlawful business practices and deceptive acts in a foreclosure. Here’s what is at stake when If you’re facing eviction from a foreclosure.
Filing an action is necessary for keeping your home after determining a wrongful foreclosure claim. Until a court rules on the matter it may be the only way have a way to protect your home. Real Property (e.g. in California) cannot transfer from one party to another where a lien is considered to be defect. The notion is the sale must fail whereby a transfer or conveyance or real property is near impossible. But a closer look at case law will show us the need to seek out a good attorney for determining the grounds for calling a Trustees Sale void or voidable and understanding the remedies where a tort or material violation does exist. Even when a fraud takes place we remind clients the court may not necessarily rule your home is you’re anymore even after determining the deed and transfer was unenforceable.
A predatory loan is something that falls under a theorem of “Mutual Consideration”. It is the shared responsibility by both sides for a willful act offered by one and accepted by the other party. For example, you took the loan under the circumstances as a borrower from a predatory lender and now changed your mind.
The courts say I don’t think so. Courts also are sticking with the notion of equitable consideration. Therefore there is no one to blame according to some courts recent rulings. I don’t know about that where a cause of action can be made by an attorney and claims can be made supporting the deed is potentially defective. Another type of claim is made for circumstances where a forgery or recorded document accomplishes the sale from someone committing an unlawful act.
Where it can be shown there exists fraud or deceptive business practices the deed is considered defect and therefore the sale must fail. If the subject loan originated through unfair business practices, then your deed or mortgage maybe argued to be subject to a defect.
That deed or mortgage will “rest disturbed” if subject to substantive arguments brought in litigation. Therein your claims may make the transfer of the property to anyone impossible. In other words the Power of sale and right to acceleration in a non judicial matter are rendered unenforceable. You challenge the lenders security which allows them to claim your home in a default judgment. It is unenforceable from commencement or discovery and subject to a void or voidable determination by the court.
Here is the catch you need to be aware of. It falls under fraudulent releases, request for reconveyance and forgeries.
Can a bona fide purchaser acquire title to property involved free of the improperly reconvened deed of trust? The answer is yes! The distinction between void and voidable acts and deeds, suggest it’s not the mere presence of forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.
Case Law:
A reconveyance of a deed of trust, executed by the trustee in misplaced reliance on a forged request for reconveyance, is voidable but not void. That is according to a California Court of Appeal that held this decision in the case is Schiavon v. Arnaudo Brothers, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801, 2000 WL 1586381 (2000) . The same rules apply to the reconveyance of the property interest under a deed of trust as to the conveyance of property by grant deed. Here, the lawful trustee under the deed of trust executed the reconveyance of the deed by the signature of its Vice President and with full awareness of the effect of the act. The fraudulent misrepresentation occurred in the forgery on the request for reconveyance.
The conveyance was therefore voidable, but not void. The subsequent bona fide purchaser of the property was entitled to rely on it. “The Court then described earlier California cases to illustrate the void vs. voidable distinction.
In Erickson v. Bohne, 130 Cal.App.2d 553 (1955), the plaintiff was mentally and physically incompetent when she executed a deed. She didn’t know she was signing a deed, didn’t intend to convey her property, and received no consideration. The deed was held void, and the plaintiff prevailed over a later bona fide purchaser.
In Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Service, Inc., 151 Cal.App.3d 36 (1984), the plaintiff held a deed of trust naming as trustee a corporation that was owned by the trustor/borrower. The trustor/borrower executed and recorded a reconveyance using a fictitious name, purportedly the executive officer of the trustee/corporation.
The reconveyance was found to be a forgery and held void, and the plaintiff prevailed over a later bona fide Lender.
In Fallon v. Triangle Management Services, Inc., 169 Cal.App.3d 1103 (1985), the original owner executed a deed to Tolbert, and Tolbert then mortgaged the property. The deed was found to have been procured by undue influence and held voidable, and the bona fide lender prevailed over the original owner.
Now in Firato v. Tuttle, 48 Cal.2d 136 (1957), plaintiffs held a deed of trust naming a real estate broker as trustee. The trustee/broker executed a reconveyance without authority, falsely stating that the loan was paid off. The reconveyance was found to have been unauthorized and voidable, and a bona fide lender prevailed over the plaintiffs.
You should conclude that the facts in the Schiavon case are more akin to those in Firato than Wutzke, where the Court held that the interest of the “innocent purchaser for value” (Arnaudo Brothers) will prevail over Schiavon et al. This case presents a classic example of the distinction between void and voidable acts and deeds.
This case study is not intended to offer a legal opinion where only a licensed practitioner may do so. It is more for giving the pre-foreclosure victim something to consider where affirmative defense should include acts of fraud but mat not necessarily save their home if it goes to sale. In a trustee sale the lender will take back the home in a trustee’s sale or sell it through a trustee sale to a bonifide purchaser. As an expert who testifies in court I can tell you the problems you have with potential deceptive and unlawful acts such as forgery are likely to get you the courts attention.
But if discovered after the fact you may find your remedy at best may not include getting your home returned to you. It appears it’s not the mere presence of forgery but where forgery comes into play that determines the outcome between innocent victims.
Therefore do evaluate and consider the need to mount a defense against foreclosure before a sale back to the bank or even worse a third party. As an Expert Witness who provides testimony in these matters I know where to evidence fraud if fraud exists in the file. I often see repeated foul play in the transferring of the asset from the parties to a trust and then after the fact.
And know that there is a strong chance the lender and interested parties can be prevented from forcing a borrower out of the home. In the examples you have read an unlawful detainer may not be justified if another court can determine your rights are being violated subject to a court having the proper jurisdiction rule in accordance with remedies and damages subject to the deed having been determined to be void or voidable.
Livinglies site is not only for the skeptics enjoyment and those seeking sources of underground legal entertainment. Damn it people it works.
Posted on February 2, 2009 by livinglies
Comment:
http://www.foreclosureinforsearch.com
By Maher Soliman
Living lies recently posted an outstanding (according to our counsel) well prepared Motion to set aside judgment which we used to file after entry of judgment for a UD hearing that did not end up favorable. We filed six motions total to date and we are five for six when filed.
LA SALLE NATIONAL BANK COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN;
TRACY JUDICIAL DISTRIC V. O. MUNOZ CASE NO 39-2008-00196254-CL-UD-TRA
The most recent effort to bring life back into a wrongful foreclosure was a late filing on Friday January 31th 2009. The trustor now holdover was prepared to meet her fate on the following Monday as the sheriffs order to vacate the subject dwelling was scheduled and likely to occour early in the am. We typically come back to court now no later than one month subsequent to the last court date with the motion. I understand in some circumstances you can file it years after the case has been closed by the courts.
We filed this one after two weeks subsequent to the courts ruling against.
The documents were filed with a half hour to go before the court closed. The trustor called to tell us she got the documents filed as were prepared and signed off by counsel last minute.
While driving home the party was calling to inform us of her apprehensions of moving and concerns for coming to grips the party was over. Brenda Michelson from our office took the livinglies opportunity and chance to the client and was on the phone with the party as she pulled up to the home to find the order to stay the matter was already posted to her door. IT HIT! Needless to say we are going back to court in a few weeks’ and the order to stay is good through February.
Livinglies site is not only for the skeptics enjoyment and those seeking sources of underground legal entertainment.
Damn it people it works.
Respect the courts as lay persons and follow procedures. If this is all new to you get an attorney to just over see you and one like Susan Rabin Esq who is willing to cooperate. That’s all and the rest should fall into place.
Maher Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.comFiled under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, Obama, community banks, foreclosure, foreign relations, securities fraud | Tagged: disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, Lender Liability, lost note, mortgage meltdown, predatory lending, securitization
In order to begin to explain the FSP, you need to know that FAS 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities, contains criteria that restrict “sale accounting” on transferred financial assets when there is a concurrent purchase agreement.
Consequently, “repurchase agreements” (repos) may be subject to “loan accounting” instead of sale accounting.
The difference in accounting treatments is as follows: under sale accounting, the asset comes off the balance sheet and is replaced by the proceeds from sale; under loan accounting, the asset stays on the balance sheet, so the credit offset to recognition of the proceeds is to debt. So most significantly, sale accounting is off-balance sheeting financing, and loan accounting is on-balance sheet financing.
Never mind the judgment exercised by the FASB in publishing what amounts to a user’s manual for yet another off-balance sheet scheme, one must ask whether the FASB is tone deaf or indifferent to the recently inflamed ire of investors and politicians with off-balance sheet accounting.
And, while financial services are the targeted beneficiary of FASB largess, you never know when some Fastow-type CFO is going to apply it by “analogy” to their own nefarious machinations involving power plants, energy contracts, leases or what have you.
So, good luck dear accounting
ACCT ONION
TO MY ONLY LAST HOPE OF CONVEYING THE TRUTH….THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE THEY WONT BELIEVE…..MSOLIMAN
AS M.Soliman, on November 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm Said: Dont make fools out of these people and use this as a toy for your entertainment . . . save homes …don’t destroy lives!”
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Dear Sir;
You are the reason for giving people no hope. I am proud to have won the home for Donal Spicer.
He said in parting “Thank you” and good bye.
Attorneys, his attorney never ever called me again. NEVER .I never heard from his attorney again. Not one call! The case was dismissed and with that I was relieved of my assignment.
People, if I do as I say and your attorney agrees …we will have a chance. …either you allow me to testify or your attorney will take over with out me.
This attorney is setting himself up like so many others for a malpractice suit. I never was called back again. Why?
And this monstor who writes to dampen your spirits is just that…an ugly side of the human condition.
“…Dont make fools out of these people and use this as a toy for your entertainment . . . save homes …don’t destroy lives!”
MY ARGUMENTS WORK….THE ATTORNEYS AS NG SAID FOR THE MOST PART ….THEY DON’T GET IT!
Thanks Alan for helping all of see the importance of my testimoney.
EXPERT.WITNESS@LIVE.COM
November 11, 2009
A VIEW FROM AN EXPERT PERSPECTIVE
Re: Foreclosure Matters.
Dear Counsel;
The proper foreclosure defenses are anything but common in reference to pleas and repetitive RESPA violations and HUD related jargon. Where this expert and witness sees parties fail is not considering mortgage lender anti-fraud provisions. Those are likely enforced by the SEC due to homeowners and having employed the home as collateral in a registration and accredited Blue Sky.
Consider the other components of investigation such as FIERRA passage by congress, FASB and FAS 140-3 and the Commission’s enforcement of 1122 AB
After nearly eight years as an officer for a member Thrift I saw the switch over to a new authority and call to operating as a FSB under the Office of Thrift Supervision. Thus I left the thrift to join privately held companies who were now jumping into non-agency lending. These companies that were held private soon went public. They also went bust in 1998 when the market tanked and now we have come full circle back to the thrifts. But they are the biggest and best capitalized thrifts in the United States and in the World.
All of this is accomplished and the expense of prior legislation to protect tax payers under FIERRRA. Long gone are Garn St Germain and Taft Hartley.
Now it’s time to go after the homeowners and to punish our lenders with lucrative bail out capital and blinded, rampant foreclosure policies! Under the regulator authority of the OTS the Thrifts still cannot circumvent FIERRA and participate in high cost high risk lending. The Troubled Assets Relief Program adds a certain flavor of non compliance and more pressure into the mix. That will ultimately be their demise if I can get lawyers to listen.
I am also concerned with the delays in the collections effort and the willingness for the lenders to NOT adhere to mandates offered under TARP and Ccc 2923.5. If fact, the claims you’re entitled to are being further circumvented by issues unrelated to trustor personal matters, such as a less than arms servicing agent or need for lenders to maintain distance in every workout.
I opine there is the violation you’re missing. It is a devastating problem for the lender. Lenders and their servicing providers are non-compliant with GAAP and FASB and rules under 140-3 (Controlling assets upon which a sale would otherwise be declared voidable). They fail in their effort and may incur reporting problems.
Therein you also have claims under 1122AB that are enforceable under the Commission’s (SEC) authority and enforcement divisions. There is a multitude of damaging “accountant’s attestation” reports we have discovered to establish these arguments for servicer violations.
Recent news regarding AIG and insured warrants are subject to rumors firms such as Goldman Sachs received the funds (billions) indirectly from the government for relieving AIG of their responsibilities or liabilities. This makes no sense and if proven will further allow Wall Street to circumvent their liability to homeowners in favor of the investors who used their home as collateral for issuing and receiving valueless stock.
This market is about enforcing your arguments and asserting your client’s rights were violated. Certain things remain unexplained in hope and anticipation they can better be revealed (as I am doing). The presupposition here is that the consumer homeowner has nothing to do with high powered Wall Street financial transactions and liabilities.
If your client’s home is collateral used to obtain a loan then you do have a right to make a claim. My belief is their home and neighbors home are collateral provided to a registrant solely to create securities and to provide Wall Street its guarantees. This is the case whereby the collateral is pledged to an indenture and Trustee who is none other than another securitizing partner (Wells, LaSalle, Duetsche etc).
The homes are the collective security for the parties owned by Wall Street or “obligor” to make pledges’ and access liquidity and profits far greater than if they toll an otherwise sick bank public or reassured their stock. But those capital stock issuances and pledges prohibit the obligor from recovering its own collateral (homes) while it must make good on default to borrowers. And those bulk asset pledged are offered from reckless acceptance practices under predatory guidelines.
Now, to stem losses the obligor has a problem – because they sold your client loan. The sale must fail if the terms for a repo are established in advance or must be met under a recourse provision. These repo structured sale backs provide a three journey path to and from and back to the trust with no accounting value or real business purpose upon the initial and subsequent advance. It’s all for recognition purposes.
Preventing this maligned and distorted means of cheating to continue is paramount to your success in fighting for a “work out” and seeking a remedy for a predatory loan made by intentional bad design.
The exposure of deceptive practices and demand for imposing a halt to the sale of your client’s home or to prevent another unlawful foreclosure from proceeding is critical early on. Uncovering the financial madness translates into foreclose with no exceptions over seeking a remedy for a resolution to Corporate America’s problems.
Our research tells us tells only a few Americans will survive this mess with home intact. And the rest will be forced to deal with the fact they lost their home to parties that were not entitled to foreclose on you. There are many questions the lender should at least answer without it appearing as only a stall tactic a trustee cannot see through.
You must offer adequate support for a logical plan. My scholarly view is one should use the Bankruptcy filing for protection or courts to press these arguments for stripping the obligation from the lien or security. I will testify in a matter or adversary that a lender may have no standing for making good on a controlled sale of your clients home as a liquidation and sole means to avoid their own recourse provisions under a repurchase agreement.
What you require is exemplar, evidential material, substance in your arguments and you can demonstrate that from the recovery notices that were filed improperly into county records by (who knows) someone that may not be authorized to represent the holder in due course.
Consumer homeowners are outgunned and way over their heads and most of their arguments to date have failed subject to a toss of a coin and Judges temperament.
This is my observation even though some information you have obtained may actually own more or lack any merit at all.
You have some of the pieces now but the puzzle is far from being assembled into a wining defense. You otherwise are merely prolonging the inevitable….a delayed foreclosure sale.
Regards;
M.Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
ABBY – you can file adversary proceedings (so this is like a lawsuit within the bankruptcy) and it can be against the lender/forecloser etc.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SLIM TO NOTHING ODDS OF AN ADVERSARY ARE? I WORKED SIDE BY SIDE WITH A BK ATTORNEY WHO COULD NOT EVEN GET PASSED THE TRUSTEE AND WHO WAS DISMISSED 33 TIMES IN A ROW. WHAT IS IT YOU KNOW?
DAN, YOUR ONE OF THEM , NO?
MSOLIMAN
ADMIN@BORROWERHOTLINE.COM
RE: CONTRA COSTA U.D. PS08-2028
CLAIMS: “WON HOME”
and
“MATTER: La Salle Bank Vs Spicer TRIAL:
UNLAWFUL DETAINER WON HOME AT $1 MILLION” – M.Soliman
BACK ON NOV 8, I NOTED:
“Case PS08-2028 – Complaints/Parties
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: UD COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 09/10/2008
Complaint Status: DISPOED
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 Plaintiff LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS judgment for 04/10/2009
2 Defendant DONAL L. SPICER Pro Per judgment against 04/10/2009
3 Defendant ALL OTHER OCUPANTS judgment against 04/10/2009
THEN ASKED:
So, Maher, given that fraud is ubiquitous, what can we vulnerable souls on the Internet do to counter it? How best can we protect ourselves against it?”
My post was IMMEDIATELY followed by:
“ON SPEAKING ABOUT FRAUD
November 9th 2009 4:55 AM PST
By M.Soliman
“…Talk about fraud. … Anyway. What a roll we are on as fraud is running out of control. Who you ask? You name it… Houston …we have a problem . . . over!”
Deontos, on November 9th, 2009 at 6:05 pm Said:
“Maher,
I am trying to track your successes.
I am interested in the Case Files and Results.”
FROM Bobbie at the Contra Costa County Court, Pittsburg Division at (925) 427-8158, I learned the following:
Donal L. Spice LOST and WAS LOCKED OUT of his Contra Costa house.
FROM Marc Terbeek, Esq., (510) 689-9068, Donal Spice’s attorney (who mostly practices ‘FORECLOSURE ABATEMENT’) I learned that he HAD consulted Maher Soliman, but was able only to buy his client a few months before Donal L. Spice LOST his ‘million dollar house,’ but it was worth only $400,000 then.
THE JURY IS IN ON THE CONTRA COSTA ‘WIN’ CLAIM
THE FACTS HAVE SPOKEN RESOUNDINGLY
ONE HAS TO WONDER HOW MANY OTHER ‘WIN’ CLAIMS WERE ACTUALLY LOSSES
AS M.Soliman, on November 9th, 2009 at 10:49 pm Said:
“…Dont make fools out of these people and use this as a toy for your entertainment . . . save homes …don’t destroy lives!”
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Tim/Cal
Motion to Quash is probably something I would still file and do ex parte—get it in front of the UD judge asap.
Of course, if you have an attorney, he/she should do this. The service was not good or it was called ‘improper’. Glad you called clerk.
I’m sure clerk told you he/she cannot provide legal advice.
Listen, re: bankrupcty–don’t consider it just a ‘skeleton’ to buy time (and never tell the judge that!!).
If you read around on this site, especially some of Neil’s posts, you will learn that much can be done to ‘save’ your home from the foreclosure right in the bankruptcy court. However, as I mentioned in many prior posts, the typical bankruptcy attorney likes to do ‘vanilla’ work—the less complicated and plain filings. In a bankruptcy though, and really read info on this blog, you can file adversary proceedings (so this is like a lawsuit within the bankruptcy) and it can be against the lender/forecloser etc. You can do discovery in an AP etc.
The bankruptcy could be a whole new avenue for you in your quest to keep your home!!!
Just think of it as another arena!! David & Goliath!!
Hello, and thank you all for your input, I will definitely pass the info on to others in need.
So, I went ahead and called the courts and asked them if the plaintiff finally filed a proof of service of the summons complaint. Clerk said, so far, not yet. But, we did file an answer weeks ago, are we still able to file a motion to quash because of the answer?
If not, worse case scenerio, ill probably have to file a skeleton bk to buy me more time. At least so I can find a seriously good/affordable attorney to see if there are any violations. Uhhgg,stressful times. What if all homeowners from cali to florida protest to keep our homes, the banks cant stop us all, lol. Its all funny money anyhow. God Bless
Maher,
What’s your PURPOSE in recycling the LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD letter you first posted a year ago under HOMEOWNERS?
That was back in the Bush administration. A lot of water has flowed over the dam since.
Why is its date ellipted?
ALLAN
BeMoved@AOL.com
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
Member of Congress
Washington, D.C., Office:
2330 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1766
Fax: (202) 226-0350
Dear Maher:
Knowing you interest in housing issues, I want to take this opportunity to update you with my views on the foreclosure crisis, FHA loan limits and down payment assistance.
I strongly believe that FHA-backing of mortgages is one of the most significant steps we can take to address the current foreclosure crisis. As you are aware, while the Economic Stimulus Act temporarily increased the FHA-insurable loan limit to $729,000, if further action is not taken, the limit will fall to $362,000 at the end of this year. This level is far too low to make a difference in California where the cost of a home greatly exceeds the national average.
I continue to support down payment assistance programs that allow low-income families to afford decent housing without have to sacrifice other essentials like food, clothing, healthcare, or a child’s education. Families should not be forced to choose between these basic needs when budgets are tight.
You will be pleased to know that on May 8, 2008, I voted in support of the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221), which was signed by the President and became public law on July 30, 2008 . This housing stimulus includes an expansion of the FHA program, and also permanently raises the FHA loan limits. You may be assured that as your representative in Congress and as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on transportation , Housing and Urban Development with funding jurisdiction over housing programs, I will continue to represent your views as Congress continues to take steps to help homeowners and homebuyers avoid foreclosure.
Once again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this and on other issues of importance to our community, our state, and our nation.
Sincerely
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
Member of Congress
Sign up for periodic e-mail updates from Congresswoman Roybal-Allard at http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard
“No one will ever get the house for free!” ——————————
San Jose Attorney
Maher,
Good stuff… to track your successes. I am interested in. . .more about the case in San Jose You blocked a quiet title action? Yes. Did Soliman’s testimony really save these people their home? This is a great story! Is this the attorney who also told you and Mr. Heath . . . No one will ever get the house for free! ——————————–Why are you the only one who calls Soliman “Maher” .
Dont make fools out of these people and use this as a toy for your entertainment . . . save homes …don’t destroy lives!
Thanks Deontos
A quiet title action and case dating back nearly 10 years. Look up the definition Denotos
Let’s see what this mischief maker wants – okay,
Break down the flow of capital /ahhhhhhhhhh….Gain on sale accounting / general ledger
Asset sold to trust (ledger-debit asset)
Cash to depositor (ledger -gain on sale)
—————————————————————————
Cash goes to the trust (debit cash)
Derivatives / assets to depositor (credit assets)
Derivatives liquidate to trust (debit long term assets)
Cash to depositor (credit cash)
Repurchase the loan!
The first transaction has no economic accounting value. The other two cash entries travel under fast 140-3. It’s all motivated by income recognition gibberish and FASB should be ashamed.
Most recent:
* Trustee sale reversed with offer for modification
* Trustee sale held back for month
* Cash for keys offer $25,000.
What your doing is hurting people’s lives.
M.Soliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
Tim/Cal
There’s the ball! Now RUN!!
We need to hear back what happened;
I wish you success.
Your accomplishment will give a TIMELY
BOOST of spirit to Neil.
——————————–
Thank you Abby!!
You just gave me another
“Legal Lesson”.
——————————–
Maher,
I am trying to track your
successes. I am interested
in the Case Files and Results.
I remembered you talking awhile
ago about the Sacramento UD and
one in LA so I thought you could
give “Tim/Cal” some direction.
——————————–
Until I found livinglies I thought I was “on my own” and it was
just gonna be “good luck buddy” and GOODBYE to my property.
I am just so grateful to everybody here, come what may.
Deontos & Tim/Cal
yes…that is one you can easily use and file.
If I had not done that Motion to Quash service….I do not know where I’d be.
It was the ‘miracle’ that kept me in my home long enough to figure what else to do
Also, Tim/Cal it is still not too late to file or have your UD attorney file a fraud, TILA, predatory lending, usury etc. complaint in Calif. Superior Court-unlimited division.
Then you or your UD attorney can file a Motion to Consolidate the UD with the big fraud, TILA etc. complaint and see if the UD judge will do that.
Mine did!
I am still in my home for over 1 year after finding the 3 day notice to quit taped to my front door. Proceeding with my fraud case.
You have to act very quickly on this!! Try not to let UD
court issue a judgment.
I am not an attorney. Always consult an attorney.
The above is my opinion and what I did with my UD.
Tim/Cal.,
Good expereince tells me good advice here so far! …cannot argue. We have won these cases as a defendant and upon a last minute stay against writ of attachment. You have time to mount a defense. Look through the cases herein we have won appearing with counsel under a limited scope engagement and attorney who agrees to speacial appear.
What’s key here is the ability to side step jurisdiction. Critical. There is a way to compel the court to hear the arguments and attacking a note in UD is a zero chance in hell.
That’s all…nothing magic and again….good advice here.
secondarytradedesk@yahoo.com
Hint: Under a deed of trust, the borrower grants the property, irrevocably until the debt is paid, in trust, generally with a power of sale, to the trustee to secure payment of the obligation.(its illegal to give advice).
RE: Tim/Cal
Abby,
I did a “site” search on livinglies and couldn’t
find your file:
site:http://livinglies.wordpress.com/ +ABBY “Motion to Quash”
Just got 3 entries, but no file.
I found this on scribd just now, is the ONE?
*Tim/Cal*
This may be helpful, perhaps your UD attorney can
get this done for you?
Motion to Quash on Pleading Paper Template
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15860204/Motion-to-Quash-on-Pleading-Paper-Template-
Tim/Cal
If the service was bad you can file a Motion to Quash the service. Double check with your civil clerk for your UD to see if opposing ever did file the proof of service.
If not, you might want to consider filing Motion to Quash the service.
I did it in California and won! They had to start all over and serve me again.
I am not an attorney and you should always consult an attorney who is competent.
Since you have some sort of trial to do soon….I’d do an ex parte Motion to Quash…when you go to clerk to file this…you tell her that you need an ex parte date…in other words right away, pronto ..need to be in front of the UD judge.
Or, at the very least….file it right away and hand carry it to court the day of your hearing.
If you have a ‘trial’ date set….have you got your discovery done?
Did you call Tim McCandless, Esq. He is here in California. He travels the state. He has a blog.
Also, I think somewheres on this site is my old template, way old…on the Motion to Quash.
If you search in ScribD, you may also find a Motion to Quash template that you can use.
You have to customize it to fit your facts.
Try to get in touch with Tim McCandless Esq.
The above is my opinion only. I am not providing legal advice.
Tim/Cal
You said,”No proof of service filed by Plaintiff”
Did they actually serve you?
If not, what does your attorney say about
the “lack of service”?
Maher
Dan Edstrom
Abby?
Do you have time to weigh in on this? Or perhaps you already have
and I haven’t seen it come up yet?
I wish I could be of direct help, but I am like you …….never lived in the legal world; but I am trying to intensely learn what I can as quickly as possible.
==============================
Comments I have saved that might assist:
I MAKE NO PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE:
———————————————————————
Tide is Turning: UNlawful Detainer Action turns Into Battle over Wrongful Foreclosure
Posted on November 19, 2008 by livinglies
The entire matter was set for trial . “…for the most part, this is unheard of in a UD hearing, but hopefully a sign of things to come” according to Maher Soliman, “Expert” speaking on behalf of the defendant and attorney Mark Terbeek. 11.19.2008 /Special thanks to Counsel, MTerbeek, B Michelson, Edwin Heath
———————————————————————
THANKS TO OUR HARD-WORKING LOCAL COUNSEL ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
October 21, 2009
Less than two years ago, FDN had one local counsel in one state. Today, we are affiliated and work with twenty (20) different law Firms representing borrowers across the United States. We wish to extend warm, hearty, and continuing thanks to these attorneys who have and continue to tirelessly provide valuable assistance to our mission to represent borrower victims of foreclosure:
Elizabeth DuPar, Esq. (San Francisco Bay area, northern California)
Hung Nyguen, Esq. (San Francisco Bay area, northern California)
———————————————————————
erlinda, on September 25th, 2009 at 5:46 pm Said:
here’s another name of a lawyer in the bay area “who gets it”
OXZANA KOZLOV
650-814-7708
okzlov@gmail.com
———————————————————————
CALIFORNIA ASSIGNMENTS MUST BE RECORDED
Posted on September 24, 2008 by livinglies
FROM TIM MCLANDLESS
Most all foreclosures in California can be set aside. The power of sale by non judicial means is contained in the civil code 2932. In order to be valid the assignment must be recorded California civil code 2932.5. Most all notices of default recorded by the “Sub-Prime” lenders have not recorded an assignment till just before or just after the Trustee’s sale. They rely on the MERS agency agreement to protect them but under California law they are wrong.
———————————————————————
Judge upholds three-word foreclosure strategy
Friday, May 29, 2009 | 8:00 PM
http://www.bayliving.com/produce-the-note/index.htm
SAN JOSE, CA (KGO) — A Bay Area couple has successfully blocked their lender from taking their home. A federal judge in San Jose brought the foreclosure process to a stop after the couple invoked a three-word strategy first outlined last month by 7 On Your Side’s Michael Finney.
A home could be saved with three words: “produce the note.” Facing foreclosure, owners Isabel and Richard Caporale are using a novel legal strategy to hang on to their home. The couple went to federal court and basically said just three words.
“They claim they have it, but I have no proof that they have this note, and you would think by now it’s been almost three months,” says attorney Marc Voisenat.
———————————————————————
Deontos,
Thanks for the response. Well, its a stressful situation and im sure a lot of homeowners going through forclosure can understand.
Anyhow, we’ve actually lost the house already, but were still living in it. It had a sale date in september and we received a summons for the UD in october. We filed a response with the answer with some bad advice from a relative. Basically stating to produce the note and accepting fault for everything listed in the summons.
We had trial last week, nov. 5th, and our attorney, who only does UD’s by the way, asked the judge for a continuance to find an attorney who specializes in forclosure defense. She granted us 7 more days until nov. 12th, to come back to trial and basically do it all over again. On top of that, the lender did not file a proof of service, so maybe that allowed her to give us more time. Not sure tho.
So, here we are. 3 days away from trial and still looking for an attorney who gets it. I dont know if we have a leg to stand on in court, but being on this site is giving me some kind of hope in at least seeing what options I have for a forclosure defense. Any strategies, lawyers, contacts will be greatly appreciated. Ive been told that I would have to file a seperate law suit against the lender to produce the note along with other strategies that I dont even know about. So, thank you all for reading this and its good to see people out there trying to help eachother out.
I sure wish I was an attorney, there are so many people out there that needs help, but are financially not able to afford one. Dont get me wrong, there are decent attornies out there, but wow, just to talk to one, its like 250-350 an hour. No wonder banks are having there way, especially in non judicial states. All I can say is, God will bless you more than money and the banks will for your good deed. Thanks and God Bless.
——————————————-
SPEAKING ABOUT FRAUD
November 9th 2009 4:55 AM PST
By M.Soliman
Talk about fraud. There is a science to looking at the instruments used for recorded notices…or maybe it’s an art? Anyway. What a roll we are on as fraud is running out of control. Who you ask? You name it.
Hers a bit of advice.
The equipment or software used to print the notices or instruments (CA) is approved for use in banks and popular with mortgage bankers. The software cannot be altered without the person having clearance. He / she would enter the system in order to alter a document and the revision is there for eternity after making the changes.
Thereafter the person who made the changes is on record as the last to alter a preprinted form. Why would they ever need to change a pre-printed form used for recording?
One more thing. The biggest tips I can give you with respect to recorded instrument used to foreclose are as follows:
See your notices
(1) Default,
(2) Assignment and
(3) Substitution
They are (almost) always printed in a set. Forget MERS here for a second as the documents are printed by the originator or successors and assigns (Depositor).
There is never any need to print any of the three documents separate let alone on a different date.
The foreclosure specialist’s are good, very good [and never the hit of a party…] but they do know what they are doing!
I believe the CA civil code 2923.5 and Obama Plan are causing these opportunists to “back date”. Last minute and when you back date the succession of dates becomes vulnerable.
These foreclosure specialists left over from the crash are lucky to have jobs and do as they are told. I am sure the trustees are telling them “rescind or revise, it’s up to you”?
Remember also, an altered instrument for recording in VOID or VOIDABLE I don’t care what you say about jurisdiction! Trust me on this one as case law is abundant.
———————————-
We have a case right now whereby I will testify (if they don’t come back with a settlement). I opine it’s a “voidable” claim and subject solely to damages as the property sold to a 3rd party animal. Void you win the home back and voidable you lose (right to reclaim your home back).
It should be a monster settlement / claim and its happening to a great guy (plaintiff). We have a document that was technically drawn on 12/18/2009. That is verified. Problem is the document is dated by hand and endorsed the same day by the notary as of 12/08/2009. . . 10 days prior to being printed?
I would move to case precedent and say every foreclosure for this lender as of the date of this claim may be grounds for rescission. Is there an attorney in the house?
Houston …we have a problem . . . over!
msoliman
expert.witness@live.com
Dear Maher,
Back on October 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am, in response to Mortgage Auditor’s valid question,
“Is there a single ruling whereby the mortgage was extinguished as a direct result of your theories and related arguments?”
you replied,
“It’s a new day and another challenge.
Ask yourself this, i f an expert who testifies is a threat to the system, many will attack and discoount everything he represents.
If not, there is no threat. Mortgage Auditor – no one ever has a problem with you…..
Case Number: PS08-2028
Matter: La Salle Bank Vs Spicer Trial:
Unlawful Detainer Won Home at $1million < MAHER YOU CLAIM
Court: Superior Court Of Contra Costa
Commissioner: Lowell Richards”
On November 3, Mortgage Auditor suggested to you
“But the best method of defense is to properly source and document your allegations and theories so people can see the substance. That is what I am searching for but so far all I have is a casual reference to a state case.”
Minutes later he produces a hyperlink to the case history:
http://icms.cc-courts.org/tellme/tellme/tellmecasereport.asp?language=ENGLISH&courtcode=P&casenumber=PS08-2028&casetype=CIV
Later that day, Deontos asked,
“Maher or Mortgage Auditor
What is the actual disposition
of the Contra Costa “UD” ? Did
the Homeowner get EVICTED?
I have no legal background; I read
the info posted regarding the case.
It seems to me the guy is OUT?”
Maher, you fired back,
“WE have had great success in Contra Costa county. Not intended to mean WE got it wired. just referring to OUR experiences. These lenders do come back and THE SECOND ROUND IS TOUGH!“ [emphases added]
On November 7, you answer Deontos defensively with what reads like a threat of prosecution,
“Folks….We have the IT info. to document the attorney who represents two or three readers (denotos) who attack me.
They soon will be revealed by prosecuters.
They don’t realize they are offering tortous interference
with cases before state and federal court.”
Again you claim, at the end of what appears as an attempt to rehabilitate your reputation, a hard-to-prove track record of victories, where again you repeat,
"….Case Number Ps08-2028
Matter: La Salle Bank Vs Spicer
Trial: Unlawful Detainer
Won Home < MAHER YOU CLAIM
Court: Superior Court Contra Costa
Commissioner: Lowell Richards"
The next day, Deontos, showing you great deference, states,
“Maher,
I think you referred to my online name as “DE NOTOS”?
If it was me you were addressing; I go by: “Deontos”.
I was actually trying to better understand just the Contra Costa
case. As that is very close to where I live. I am trying to navigate
the legal world without any prior background in this arena. When
things are written by the various contributors here I consider it
my lessons. I am grateful to all. As I have said before I don’t
always understand everything you say but my gut says you are REAL and my ears perk up when I see your comments.
Thanks again for following up on that case.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Maher,
I hope you'll NOT consider this simple request for verification of your oft published win claims an instance of tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Clearly, I would not wish to interfere with any prospects you might hope to troll for here with desperate homeowners such as Tim, who reached out for HELP specifically to YOU (by name) November 6.
Maher, please help Deontos, Mortgage Auditor, me, Tim and the rest of our LL community better understand your claims of victory. I see you cite cases in courts at various levels all over California. The records for those other courts are largely inaccessible. Only in Costa County are case dockets available online for FREE. You must have known that.
Could you help us better understand this particular docket for UD COMPLAINT case PS08-2028? Why is the case marked DISPOED?
When I GO TO THE HYPERLINK ABOVE and examine the docket for Donal L Spicer, I see he acted pro per, neither your appearance nor expert testimony was noted, and it appears the case was decided AGAINST Spicer with JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT on 4/10/2009. There is mention of CONTESTED COURT TRIAL on 4/13/2009, but that appears NOT APPLICABLE.
The LAST entry is “08/05/2009 WRIT OF POSSESSION ISSUED TO CONTRA COSTA (WRIT OF POSSESSION) RETURNED WHOLLY UN SATISFIED.”
I conducted an online search and was unable to locate a Donal S. Spicer anywhere.
Maher, were I to contact
Kiri Torre, Court Executive Officer
649 Main Street
Martinez CA 94553
(voice) (925) 957-5600
ctweb@contracosta.courts.ca.gov at the Superior Court of California at the County of Contra Costa California, do you think maybe she could CONFIRM your October 30th claim that SPICER WON his $1 million house?
I see by entry that on “11/26/2008 ROBERT E. WEISS INCORPORATED CHANGES ATTORNEY FOR LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS AND IS REPLACED BY ROBERT E. WEISS INCORPORATED.” Were I to contact Robert Weiss, Inc. would they remember you or your expert testimony?
By the way, why this earlier docket entry, do you suppose? “12/15/2008 CASE IS SEALED”
Any light you can shed on this case and our collective questions would be greatly appreciated. Like President Reagan, before we part with our confidence and well-earned money, we aim to “TRUST BUT VERIFY.”
Was the ‘second round’ with LaSalle Bank N.A. as tough as you suggested?
Case PS08-2028 – Complaints/Parties
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: UD COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 09/10/2008
Complaint Status: DISPOED
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 Plaintiff LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS judgment for 04/10/2009
2 Defendant DONAL L. SPICER Pro Per judgment against 04/10/2009
3 Defendant ALL OTHER OCUPANTS judgment against 04/10/2009
So, Maher, given that fraud is ubiquitous, what can we vulnerable souls on the Internet do to counter it? How best can we protect ourselves against it? Do you recommend we place our trust in Better Business Bureau reports?
RSVP
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
USedKarGuy,
Thank you for your response last week. I undestand your position better. I thought maybe you received the info frome the trustee in a QWR. I received the same letter from Wells Fargo.
Jeff
Frivolous Lawsuit. •A baseless lawsuit that is filed with little or no prospect of success.
VEXATIOUS LITIGATION: is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender
It seems to me that the foreclosure mill that filed the suit against me falls into both of these categories.
They filed over 13,000 foreclosure suits in 2008. They continue to lose in NY courts.
Lets not forget Fraud on the Court and the Defendents.
What say you all.
Tim/Cal., on November 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am Said:
….about your request for help…….has anyone
responded yet?
Did you look at the attorney list here?
It’s possible to STOP them here Tim.
Can you post your status as of now?
I am not sure what I can do to help
you out. But if you haven’t found
help yet maybe one more post will stir up
some assistance.
Maher-great! i am glad you have your IT information.
I will be waiting for an online post of an apology to me for the false accusations by you and another, on me for whoever published the court filed judgment online etc,
Maher,
I think you referred to my online name as “DE NOTOS”?
If it was me you were addressing; I go by: “Deontos”.
I was actually trying to better understand just the Contra Costa
case. As that is very close to where I live. I am trying to navigate
the legal world without any prior background in this arena. When
things are written by the various contributors here I consider it
my lessons. I am grateful to all. As I have said before I don’t
always understand everything you say but my gut says you are REAL and my ears perk up when I see your comments.
Thanks again for following up on that case.
Question: I read your definition of a mortgage and or title security which was good; however it doesn’t show the following:
If indeed the bankers, insurance companies, and wall street, did in fact device a way in which to perpetuate a newly created marketing security – which I know they had but did they know that it was fraudulent; I believe they did, but wall street was dying for something new to sell to their investor – and I found a couple of old Robb reports offering securities backed real estate for 13.7% return. So this was actively marketed for years.
Question: How does this mechanism of security or transferring cloud and or make the deed defective.
Response – If a contract is void or voidable it is common practice to render it also unenforceable. If secured by a deed of trust (trust as in trust me?) the deceptive acts or fraud renders the deed defect.
I contend nearly every trustee’s sale as of 2009 is transferred with the deed resting disturbed. But a contract determined to be unenforceable will in fact cause the deed to be defect and also unenforceable.
M.Soliman
http://www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
(getting bombarded with questions and please be patient).
DE NOTOS: (Said)
Maher or Mortgage Auditor -What is the actual dispositionof the Contra Costa “UD” ? Did the Homeowner get EVICTED?I have no legal background;
Latin / DeNotos
“AN ATTORNEY MAY USE DE NOTOS TO RESEARCH AND REVIEW EARLIER TESTIMONEY …AND DISCOUNT AND IMPEACH AN EARLIER WITNESS”.
Folks….We have the IT info. to document the attorney who represents two or three readers (denotos) who attack me.
They soon will be revealed by prosecuters.
They don’t realize they are offering tortous interference
with cases before state and federal court.
—————————————————————————I AM AN EXPERT WHO TESTIFIES AND NOT AN ATTORNEY OR CONSULTANT. WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
Cases Prevailed and Settled
Maher Soliman Expert Witness
testimony and Appearances in Cases
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:53 AM
To: admin@borrowerhotline.com
Subject: YESTERDAY
———————————————————————-
Fr: COUNSEL TO DEFENDANT
March 2009
Hello Maher:
First and foremost, thank you for the time on a holiday yesterday in Santa Monica for your deposition. I believe . . . your testimony yesterday should clear up any lingering questions the (courts) may have on whether they have any ownership rights to the Note and Deed of Trust.
I also really appreciate your suggestion that you will be able to travel to Northern California within the next month to complete this.
Keep me updated and we can set a time in June.
Best regards,
Counsel to Homeowner
XYZZ Law Offices
******avenue, Suite 40
xxxxxxx, CA 95008
Telephone: 000-000-0000
Facsimile: 000-000-0000
————————————————————-
Settlement Offers:
Out of Court settlement / Offer
L Lopez: $50,000 /
M Ramirez: $20,000 /Out of Court
E Fanning: $25,000 / 90 Days Stay Eviction
Case Number: MCV202430
matter: HSBC Bank vs. Lewis’
Trial: Judgment for Defendants
Court: Superior Court Napa / Santa Rosa
Judge: Gary Nadler
Case Number: (call us)
Matter: Wells Fargo Vs Goines
Trial: Judgment for Defendants
Court: Superior Court of Ca / LA
Judge: (call us)
Case Number Ps08-2028
Matter: La Salle Bank Vs Spicer
Trial: Unlawful Detainer
Won Home
Court: Superior Court Contra Costa
Commissioner: Lowell Richards
Case Number: UDFS900217
Matter: Bank of New York Vs Medina
Motion: Defendant – Set Aside
Court: County Of San Bernardino
Judge:
Case Number: CV 09-00885 JFW JTLX
Matter: Deutsche Bank vs. K Russell
Trial: Court Trial Unlawful Detainer
Court: Superior Court Of CA
Santa Monica Div
Judge: (call us)
Case Number: 08u17459
Contact: M.Soliman
Expert witness
Telephone 213-627-2324
Telephone 213-880-6288
Msoliman or any Attornies in California,
Like so many out there, were in desperate need to stop a forclosure on our house. We had to show up for trial yesterday for an unlawful detainer. Luckily, the judge noticed that there was no proof of service filed in the courts, so they gave us 1 more week .
So, we are in desperate need of advice/attorney to help us with our case, were in solano county. We dont know much of the legal system, but I do know there is only so much you can do in a unlawful detainer case.
We would like to challenge the lender to show that they are the noteholders and were properly assigned the note at the time the forclosure was filed. Along with any other forclosure defenses. From what I heard, this matter must be brought up in a civil lawsuit. Unfortunetely we have 6 more days until trial for the ud, if that matters.
Weve tried contacting local attornies, but they didnt seem to get it. Any advice or contacts would be a Blessing. Thanks again, Tim and family
fifita77@att.net
WHY MORTGAGES AREN’T MODIFIED AND WHAT A RULING STOPPING FORECLOSURE MEANS
– Edward Harrison
“In August, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling against a mortgage tracking service which may prove very costly to banks in foreclosure, leading to massive writedowns. It could be a life saver for many trapped in the foreclosure process. The case goes to the core of the functioning of massive markets in securitization and derivatives and has wide-ranging importance.
The service, MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System), is a privately-owned registry set up in 1997 by Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and several large banks including JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C) and Bank of America (BAC). In foreclosure, MERS is often the party which files on behalf of the lenders behind the mortgage against homeowners. The Kansas ruling effectively blocks MERS from bringing legal action on the lenders’ behalf in certain foreclosure situations, potentially putting the kibosh on MERS’ legal authority on the more than 60 million mortgages it holds and subjecting the lenders to huge losses.
This is a complicated but important case I want to break down for you below.
Securitization at fault
The crux of the case has to do with mortgage-backed securities and the process of securitization. In a bygone era, almost all mortgages were held as loans on the books of the originating banks. In this case, if a mortgage went past due, it was a matter to be worked out between an individual homeowner and an individual mortgage holder.
However, when the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market took off, mortgages were sliced and diced into tranches and packaged into securities and sold on to investors. These same securities were then sliced and diced and packaged with other securities into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). CDOs were often then sliced and diced further still into CDOs-squared – that is CDOs of CDOs.
Often times, the underlying mortgages in these instruments were high-risk, sub-prime mortgages. But the ratings agencies could still give them AAA ratings, which made them eligible for investment by risk-averse investors like teachers’ pension funds or municipalities. So, these securities were then sold on to investors around the world into remote places like small towns in Norway and banks in Germany. However, when the housing market fell, the value of these securities plummeted; and they fell much more than the house prices as the securities are derivatives and leveraged against the value of the underlying asset. The result was a financial crisis of epic proportions.
Making matters more complicated for the homeowner, the originating lender is often not the servicing agent of a mortgage. Payment from the homeowner and to investors who are the ultimate owners of the security is handled by a mortgage servicer who collects a fee for its work.
What this has meant is that there is considerable distance between a homeowner and a mortgage holder, such that in the event of foreclosure, it is not a matter of picking up the telephone and calling Mr. Smith at the local Bank. Often times, there is a byzantine web of originating bank, mortgage holder (if loan is sold), mortgage servicer, MBS pooling/securitizing agent, and investors. Needless to say, the average person doesn’t have a clue as to who to call in order to get relief to avoid foreclosure. The obvious port of call is the mortgage servicer, who is the one party with whom a homeowner has ongoing contact.
Mortgage Servicer
Below is a research report written by the National Consumer Law Center just this past month on why consumers in jeopardy of suffering foreclosure cannot get loans modified.
It starts:
The country is in the midst of a foreclosure crisis of unprecedented proportions. Millions of families have lost their homes and millions more are expected to lose their homes in the next few years. With home values plummeting and layoffs common, homeowners are crumbling under the weight of mortgages that were often only marginally affordable when made.
One commonsense solution to the foreclosure crisis is to modify the loan terms. Lenders routinely lament their losses in foreclosure. Foreclosures cost everyone—the homeowner, the lender, the community—money. Yet foreclosures continue to outstrip loan modifications. Why?
Once a mortgage loan is made, in most cases the original lender does not have further ongoing contact with the homeowner. Instead, the original lender, or the investment trust to which the loan is sold, hires a servicer to collect monthly payments. It is the servicer that either answers the borrower’s plea for a modification or launches a foreclosure. Servicers spend millions of dollars advertising their concern for the plight of homeowners and their willingness to make deals. Yet the experience of many homeowners and their advocates is that servicers—not the mortgage owners—are often the barrier to making a loan modification.
See the problem? This is exactly why loan modifications are not happening in large enough numbers. This goes to incentives – mortgage servicers are not incentivized to make modifications. In fact the incentives go the other way – foreclosure.
Servicers have four main sources of income, listed in descending order of importance:
The monthly servicing fee, a fixed percentage of the unpaid principal balance of the loans in the pool;
Fees charged borrowers in default, including late fees and “process management fees”;
Float income, or interest income from the time between when the servicer collects the payment from the borrower and when it turns the payment over to the mortgage owner; and
Income from investment interests in the pool of mortgage loans that the servicer is servicing.
Overall, these sources of income give servicers little incentive to offer sustainable loan modifications, and some incentive to push loans into foreclosure. The monthly fee that the servicer receives based on a percentage of the outstanding principal of the loans in the pool provides some incentive to servicers to keep loans in the pool rather than foreclosing on them, but also provides a significant disincentive to offer principal reductions or other loan modifications that are sustainable on the long term. In fact, this fee gives servicers an incentive to increase the loan principal by adding delinquent amounts and junk fees. Then the servicer receives a higher monthly fee for a while, until the loan finally fails. Fees that servicers charge borrowers in default reward servicers for getting and keeping a borrower in default. As they grow, these fees make a modification less and less feasible. The servicer may have to waive them to make a loan modification feasible but is almost always assured of collecting them if a foreclosure goes through. The other two sources of servicer income are less significant.
If servicers’ income gives no incentive to modify and some incentive to foreclose, through increased fees, what about servicers’ expenditures? Servicers’ largest expenses are the costs of financing the advances they are required to make to investors of the principal and interest payments on nonperforming loans. Once a loan is modified or the home foreclosed on and sold, the requirement to make advances stops. Servicers will only want to modify if doing so stops the clock on advances sooner than a foreclosure would.
Worse, under the rules promulgated by the credit rating agencies and bond insurers, servicers are delayed in recovering the advances when they do a modification, but not when they foreclose. Servicers lose no money from foreclosures because they recover all of their expenses when a loan is foreclosed, before any of the investors get paid. The rules for recovery of expenses in a modification are much less clear and somewhat less generous.
In addition, performing large numbers of loan modifications would cost servicers upfront money in fixed overhead costs, including staffing and physical infrastructure, plus out-of-pocket expenses such as property valuation and credit reports as well as financing costs. On the other hand, servicers lose no money from foreclosures.
This is a very important document for anyone looking to do a loan modification. I strongly suggest you read it, download it and act upon it.
By the way, the largest servicers are:
* Bank of America: $2.1 trillion, up from $530 billion a year earlier (via its acquisition of Countrywide – this is WHY Bank of America bought Countrywide)
* Wells Fargo (WFC): $1.8 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion a year earlier
* JPMorgan Chase: $1.5 trillion, up from $795 billion a year ago (thanks in large part to its acquisition of Washington Mutual)
* CitiMortgage (a division of Citigroup): $792 billion, down from $799 billion a year earlier. Citi is hurting i everywhere)
* ResCap: $391 billion, down from $449 billion in the first quarter of 2008.
As you can see, consolidation has meant the big are getting bigger. Despite a recession, servicing fees are increasing, not decreasing.
You should DEFINITELY read my post “How refinancing helps the likes of Bank of America and Wells Fargo” because this demonstrates why these banks are going to rack up monster fees in mortgage servicing.
Landmark National Bank v. Boyd A. Kessler, Kan 2009, No. 98,489
That brings us to the Kansas case. According to the Kansas City Business Journal, the case can be summarized as follows:
A Ford County man went into bankruptcy in 2006. He had taken out two mortgages on the same property, one to Landmark National Bank and one to Millennia Mortgage Corp. Landmark foreclosed on its mortgage. Millennia had sold its mortgage, which eventually landed at Sovereign Bank, though that transaction never was recorded in Ford County.
Neither MERS nor Sovereign received notice when Landmark filed its foreclosure. That’s because the notice went to Millennia, still registered in Ford County, which is like telling someone that a stranger’s car is about to be towed.
Landmark won a default judgment, essentially wiping out Sovereign’s mortgage. MERS and Sovereign sued to set aside the judgment, arguing that MERS should have received notice. They lost at trial and on appeal.
Supreme Court justices had a difficult time accepting what MERS was and why it would be entitled to receive notice of a foreclosure when it was not a lender and had no stake in the property behind the mortgage. In addition, the court found, the original mortgage required notice only to the lender, not MERS.
This case was decided on 28 August 2009 in favor of the homeowner Boyd Kessler (Document and link below). The issue was predatory lending. But there was more wrong here. MERS does facilitate liquidity in the MBS market, but it does a lot of other things that could harm consumers
* MERS also acts as a “corporate shield,” protecting lenders from legal action in cases of predatory lending.
* MERS can foreclose even though it is not the financial party with interest
* Because MERS is a distant intermediary, foreclosure can proceed without even producing an original mortgage note
* With MERS in control, consumers cannot access publicly available information to adequately determine who the holders of their note are.
If MERS is blocked from filing suit in many cases, there will be large losses accumulating at the holders of these notes. Expect to hear more about this very important case.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HYPERLINK above INCLUDES:
> WHY SERVICERS FORECLOSE WHEN THEY SHOULD MODIFY AND OTHER PUZZLES OF SERVICER BEHAVIOR (Servicer Compensation & Its Consequences) ~ a 40+ page manual published October 2009 by NCLC (National Consumer Law Center)
> LANDMARK BANK v KESSLER (The Court Syllabus)
ALLAN in MA & FL
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
By the way not that there is anything wrong with delay tactics but there is a big difference between delaying the inevitable and suggesting there is a way to defeat foreclosure.
So do you have an example whereby you actually succeeded in saving a home? Or are these all delay tactics that may buy a few months but ultimately end up in eviction?
We have had great success in Contra Costa county. Not intended to mean we got it wired. just referring to our experiences. These lenders do come back and the second round is tough! msoliman
Maher or Mortgage Auditor
What is the actual disposition
of the Contra Costa “UD” ? Did
the Homeowner get EVICTED?
I have no legal background; I read
the info posted regarding the case.
It seems to me the guy is OUT?
Here is the case history:
http://icms.cc-courts.org/tellme/tellme/tellmecasereport.asp?language=ENGLISH&courtcode=P&casenumber=PS08-2028&casetype=CIV
Maher,
What is the significance of this reference to an unpublished case without a link to the relevant text?
And, being attacked by itself is no indication of fear for what you may reveal. People are attacked for a variety of reasons so I am not sure what you are suggesting here.
But the best method of defense is to properly source and document your allegations and theories so people can see the substance. That is what I am searching for but so far all I have is a casual reference to a state case.
It’s a new day and another challenge.
Ask yourself this, i f an expert who testifies is a threat to the system, many will attack and discoount everything he represents.
If not, there is no threat. Mortgage Auditor – no one ever has a problem with you…..
Case Number: PS08-2028
Matter: La Salle Bank Vs Spicer Trial:
Unlawful Detainer Won Home at $1million
Court: Superior Court Of Contra Costa
Commissioner: Lowell Richards
msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
msoliman,
I am not referring to cases involving other industries. Is there a single ruling whereby the mortgage was extinguished as a direct result of your theories and related arguments? This is not a challenge but merely an attempt to better understand how the courts have reacted to these theories.
TO: “Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Dear Allan
Well Sir, I do appreciate your comments. The time and effort spent to verify our market leading findings is appreciated. It must take away from the valuable time otherwise spent with family, kicking your dog and loved ones.However, we cannot fulfill your request for assistance at this time. Please contact HUD for additional help or ACORN if your in need of counseling. Have you also considered your county’s mental health ward? We look forward to your submissions in the future and ask you to include a return address and contact information.
You will do fine inyour endeavors. And as a judge said in a matter I attended concerning handing down an eight year sentence . . .
“Good bye and good luck”.
expert witness”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Maher,
It fails me why Neil Garfield doesn’t moderate or block your mean-spirited ad hominem attacks passing as ‘postings.’ Who hurt you, and why are you making everyone here so publicly pay for it? Why so many personae?
As someone who passes himself off as an expert witness, you must be well aware of what is termed PROJECTION, e.g. “Have you also considered your county’s mental health ward?” OR ” It must take away from the valuable time otherwise spent with family, kicking your dog and loved ones.”
Should you be as self-aware as befits the vaunted role you claim to play for others, then you might consider answering your own rhetorical question. I’d gladly find institutional care for you, Maher, as I have extensive experience as a counselor and guardian ‘pink-slipping’ schizophrenics (especially paranoid) and others ‘who’ve lost it.’ Can you believe, one in 25 Americans are sociopaths (have no conscience)? Then, there are psychopaths, who carry their enmity to vile extremes!
This blogsite is a serious place where people are thoughtfully engaged in heroic fights to preserve their homes or get at the truth of what they are experiencing. Why can’t you show some decency and a modicum of respect for this positively engaged and supportive community? Why the slights? Why the ad hominem attacks? Why especially do you attack “Ladies”? Misogyny gone rampant? Forgive the stereotype, is this your cultural heritage?
If you were to re-read my posts, you’d observe I have offered you mostly constructive criticism, though I have been open about my shared annoyance with your defensive hostility and hogging the bully pulpit to pander your unproven services.
Could you furnish a list of and contact info for attorneys who have called upon and successfully implemented your expertise? You can even include those you admitted were wrong to characterize you as a ‘fool.’
Could you provide a list of cases we can view that document your expert testimony? Surely as a businessman out to win more business, you can provide these.
By your irresponsible postings, you invite discord and enmity within a community with little tolerance for either. Why so destructive? This informs how this community perceives your character, and takes away from your possibly worthwhile contributions in the area of securities and accounting expertise.
Is it possible you’re mixing me up with someone else when you state, “However, we cannot fulfill your request for assistance at this time”? Thanks for plugging ACORN and for affirming “You will do fine inyour endeavors.”
Try not to get too close to these criminal cases to which you seem to gravitate. Blurring the lines may come too easily for you. Something might rub off. One may take perverse pleasure in seeing another be punished for transgressions one oneself has committed.
Fittingly, “Good bye and good luck.”
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m (in case you missed it when you – assuming the imperial ‘we’ – stated: “We look forward to your submissions in the future and ask you to include a return address and contact information.”)
RIP OFF REPORT – – Nationwide Loan Services – Maher Soliman – NLS – borrowerhotline.com – foreclosureinfosearch.com
MISREPRESENTATION: Promised Me They Help With House Already Foreclosed,
Answer: “Help with house already foreclosed on” – what does that mean and has anyone ever heard me OFFER anything like this?
MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION: Do Forensic Loan Audits of My Other 3 Houses in Foreclosure,
Answer: We are an Expert Witness and do not employ forensic audits. We are critical of audits as we go after servicing and recovery under GAAP and FAS 140- 3 including SEC charges of 1122AB (Not the origination, Not RESPA, or TILA, Etc.)
MISREPRESENTATION: Plus Get Huge Reduction to Principle-
Answer: Has anyone here ever heard me say . . .
Under FAS 140-3 “controlling interest” a lender cannot reduce the principal whereby they do not own the loan they SOLD. THEY USE THE TRUSTEE SALE TO GET BACK THE HOME UNDER A REPO AGREEMENT.
MISREPRESENTATION: They did nothing and admitted erasing all data I emailed to them to “Audit” Los Angeles California
Answer – As an expert witness we do not do “Audits” as we stated. We question the audits and have made some auditors upset here if anything.
Ms MAs, We attack the servicer who boards a predatory loan and the standing for a foreclosure “Sale” where the Deed is defect -it is voidable and prohibits any conveyance. Now this has gone on long enough and why ?
And Abby – your ot who you say you are , correct Counsel?
admin@borrowerhotline.com
M.Soliman
Mortgage Auditor – I sent them out and it was a long list ???? . I’ll do it again but if this is something your versed in (i am not an attorney ) If so I ask the following:
Your opinion using Enron / Tyco and their illegal use of the SPV – is that qualified as case law? Also any merit in introducing cases outside the mortgage business that mirror securities violations / seciritzation is key and the SEC is loaded with references and at least great secondary authority. Maybe there is merit in following the Civil rules & guidelines for sentencing when establishing a case under a criinal attorney to be brought before the State or Fed Attorney General
I differ to you . .. .
msoliman
admin@borrowerhotline.com
secondarytradedesk,
I have yet to see any legal authority in support of your theory. Can you cite any primary or secondary authority?
Alina;
(or whatever your name is)….Read this part again
Section 562(a) states that if a trustee (or debtor in possession) rejects a repurchase agreement or other
*** safe harbored financial contract,***
or if a repo participant or other qualified financial contract counterparty liquidates, terminates or accelerates such an agreement, damages shall be measured as of the earlier of the rejection date or the date of such liquidation, termination or acceleration. Section 562(b) applies if there are no “commercially reasonable determinants of value” as of the operative date. Under those conditions, damages are to be measured as of the earliest subsequent date or dates on which there are commercially reasonable determinants of value.3
Comments-
The debtor is a registrant under a Blue Sky , a shelf or private offering. They borrower against a balance sheet that is a bucket of assets they now claim belong to them. This is only true under a “security deed” and there is the violation against a homeowner.
They have an interst in the home which is a security.
THEY DONT OWN THE HOME! GET IT. WORK WITH ME….GET IT! LET’S TRY THIS AGAIN.
IF THEY LOSE LOANS TO A MODIFCATION OR SHORT SALE THEY REDUCE THEIR ASSET BASE AND HAVING NO CAPCITY TO REPLACE THESE ASSETS THEY BREECH THE COVENANTS OF A REPO. FAS 140-3 HOWEVER PROHIBIT A REPO.
I SAID THIS ALL ALONG (I, ME MOI, YOURS TRULEY, MAN IN THE MIRROR, ETC) FAS 140-3 AND SALE OR REPO AND NO SALE
Otherwise what is your point here?
If you do not have an attorney , it is a potential problem as it is the only way an expert can be engaged and work on a case. We do have counsel to refer to you and the contact is subject to an attorney client privilege provided by law.
For the matter and pending claim OR CASE REVIEW CONTACT US :
MSoliman
expert.witness@live.com
http://www.borrowerhotline.com.
Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Dear Allan
Well Sir, I do appreciate your comments. The time and effort spent to verify our market leading findings is appreciated. It must take away from the valuable time otherwise spent with family, kicking your dog and loved ones.However, we cannot fulfill your request for assistance at this time. Please contact HUD for additional help or ACORN if your in need of counseling. Have you also considered your county’s mental health ward? We look forward to your submissions in the future and ask you to include a return address and contact information.
You will do fine inyour endeavors. And as a judge said in a matter I attended concerning handing down an eight year sentence . . .
“Good bye and good luck”.
expert witness
Don-CA, on October 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm Said:
Looks like M. Soliman is dead on:
TYING IT TOGETHER: MASSIVE, PERNICIOUS FRAUD – from the Corruption Market Ticke Looters
The above comments were unsolicited but represent everything these people cannot stand. Their prep walk maybe here soon where this is all tied into another civil matter and need to circumvent the courts authority and to discredit my testimoney inthat matter
Soliman is an expert witness and has always focused on providing counsel and clients a road map for filing claims in a wrongful foreclosure. We believe modifications and short sales are impossible based on accounting rules, therefore we are not supporting or denouncing consultant services or audits. Our testimony is influenced by SEC enforcement of guidelines for a registrant, GAAP and FASB authority and interpretations published in accordance with domestic and world accounting rules and regulatory enforcement.
Testimony provided by the witness is submitted with complaint or response and we testify in court when called upon to do so or when challenge in cross examination by the parties.
A prep walk is not a nice way to enter the courts you so often speak of.
Bye Ladies ;
ALLAN IN MA
I STARTED TO SAY THAT I HAD ALERTED ON THIS BLOG MANY MONTHS PRIOR ABOUT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO PLAGARIZE AND POST AS THEIR OWN MATERIALS HERE ON THIS SITE TO ENHANCE EVERYONE’S VIEW THAT THE PERSON IS HIGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE. THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS BLOG WHO PUSHES TO SELL HIS OR HER SERVICES.
IF ANYONE CHALLENGES THIS PERSON, HE OR SHE TRIES TO TELL THEM TO GET OFF THE BLOG AND OR ATTACKS
Allan In MA
IT IS NOT NEW NEWS ABOUT CERTAIN PEOPLE ON THIS WEBSITE WHO POST PLAGARIZE
MONEY, DEBT, GOLDSMITH FRAUDS, MONEY CHANGERS, COUNTERFEITING, PONZI SCHEMES, USES of BUSINESS CYCLES, USURY, FEDERAL RESERVE, FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING, WEALTH ERADICATION, INTEREST AS A WEAPON, SDRs & MORE
Could this sub-prime mortgage meltdown be a crisis manufactured to consolidate bankers’ powers? Could the business cycle be exploited to further empower the banking industry? You decide.
The first video tells us how banks can create money, and more.
The second is more a comprehensive piece one might expect from a Libertarian or La Rouche devotee that rails against the money changers and Federal Reserve. It provides an intriguing conspiratorial history of international banking that may speak to what economically we endure in an era when there is a calculated massive transfer of wealth underway.
“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something they know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” ~ Woodrow Wilson
MONEY AS DEBT
“This excellent, entertaining and animated feature by graphic artist and videographer, Paul Grignon, explains in careful detail – todays magically perverse debt money system. This 47 minute video presentation makes the perfect accompaniment to THE MONEY MASTERS as it delves into the specific mechanics of private money creation. It is best watched after THE MONEY MASTERS video which introduces the whole subject of modern money manipulation and its history in a broad, 3 ½ hour video presentation. The playlist contains the film in 5 parts with captions, which allows you to use the interesting YT online translation to all languages.”
THE MONEY MASTERS
“THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned “central” bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers. Segments: The Problem; The Money Changers; Roman Empire; The Goldsmiths of Medieval England; Tally Sticks; The Bank of England; The Rise of the Rothschilds; The American Revolution; The Bank of North America; The Constitutional Convention; First Bank of the U.S.; Napoleon’s Rise to Power; Death of the First Bank of the U.S. / War of 1812; Waterloo; Second Bank of the U.S.; Andrew Jackson; Fort Knox; World Central Bank; Loose Change, 911 truth, police state globalists NWO New World Order Federal Reserve Alex Jones Aaron Russo America From Freedom To Fascism Zionist IMF BIS John Perkins 911 911 Globalism Bilderberg Rothschild Rockefeller Schiff Warburg Illuminati Bohemian Grove Idi Amin Freemason
Also recommended: “Firewall: In Defense of Nation State” http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8415519765816415310 Video news on “Federal Reserve”: http://newstree.org/search.jsp?query=Federal+Reserve&hp=10&s=Video&vx=1«”
ENJOY!
Allan
B e M o v e d @ A O L . c o m
Regarding Alina, on October 20th, 2009 at 9:48 am Said: United States: “American Home” Court Denies Bank’s Deficiency Claim By Accepting Discounted Cash Flow Valuation Of Mortgage Loan Portfolio Subject To Repurchase Agreement. Can anyone explain this??? How does it relate to us out here?
IMAGINE my surprise when I Googled the following phrase in MSoliman’s Oct 19 posting:
“S&P apparently feels that before it gets back to business as usual, it needs to know more about how the FDIC plans to treat bond collateral tied in those scenarios.” …………and got the following hyperlinked Securitization.net article!
“FDIC Uncertainty Sends S&P to Sidelines
Asset Backed Alert, Harrison Scott Publications Inc. (September 25, 2009)
S&P is temporarily curtailing the volume of new ratings it assigns to asset-backed bonds issued by banks.
The retreat appears focused on credit-card securities, given their prevalence among bank-issued transactions. However, the agency still plans to grade a few such deals in the near term.
At issue is a longstanding lack of clarity about how bank insolvencies might play out after Jan. 1, when banks must start booking securitized assets on their balance sheets under the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s pending FAS 167 rules. S&P apparently feels that before it gets back to business as usual, it needs to know more about how the FDIC plans to treat bond collateral tied in those scenarios.
The agency, like many other players in the securitization industry, is concerned that the FDIC could seize securitized assets to re-pay other creditors of failed banks.
Such actions are currently blocked by true-sale accounting procedures, in which issuers gain bankruptcy-remote status for their assets by transferring them to special purpose vehicles used in securitizations. But that treatment will vanish for banks with the implementation of FAS 167.
While the concern certainly isn’t limited to S&P, it is the only rating agency that has taken action. An executive at another agency said he believes the FDIC will clarify its intent well before FAS 167 kicks in, and thus doesn’t see the need for a similar move. “I would be surprised if [the FDIC] didn’t put something out,” he said. “They’ve always been pretty supportive of . . . securitization markets in general.”
The American Securitization Forum is working on the issue. Officials from the trade group have met with FDIC representatives to discuss their concerns, and proposed two potential fixes in a Sept. 17 letter. One entails a “sale approach” that would require an FDIC agreement not to “reclaim, recover or recharacterize” securitized assets in a bank insolvency. The other, deemed a “security interest approach,” would allow seizure of securitized assets, but only if bondholders receive compensation equivalent to the principal and interest they are owed. It’s unclear whether the FDIC will adopt either suggestion. Meanwhile, S&P’s pullback has already started. The agency – historically the market leader in rating bonds backed by consumer assets – graded only eight of the 21 new credit-card deals that banks have distributed since the beginning of August. By comparison, it rated all 13 deals fitting that description in June and July, according to Asset-Backed Alert’s ABS Database.
The agency’s official take: “S&P continues to rate credit card ABS transactions in accordance with its published criteria . . . Although the recent accounting rule change has resulted in significant uncertainty about the treatment of these assets in the event of the bank’s insolvency, some issuers have been able to mitigate the risk. We have rated credit card ABS transactions in the past few months that are structured as true sales.”
S&P also noted that it rated some J.P. Morgan deals by tying them to the bank’s unsecured grade. It is still supplying ratings for deals from non-bank institutions as well. However, S&P’s maneuvering means ratings from Moody’s and Fitch are now more appealing options for many issuers. Those that want their deals to qualify for buyer financing via the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility might need to deal with both agencies, as the Federal Reserve requires that consumer-asset securitizations eligible for TALF financing carry triple-A grades from two of the three.
While the narrower field of options could delay some deals, it isn’t expected to cause a major hiccup given the fact that many issuers have already been obtaining ratings from all three agencies for TALF transactions. That said, many banks, including Bank of America, Capital One and J.P. Morgan, were already thinking about scaling back their securitization volumes next year due to pressures created by FAS 167.
In any event, the thought is that securitizations completed this year will remain exempt from FDIC action even after the FASB rules take effect. That has left some people puzzled over why S&P is acting now. “We’re still of the belief that you’re still protected by the grandfather clause,” the rival rating-agency executive said. “We’re not sure what [S&P is] thinking.”
http://www.securitization.net/article.asp?id=1&aid=9255&print=Y”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those who would appreciate an accounting translation of MSoliman’s pearls:
http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theaccountingonion/2008/03/fsp-140-3.html
FSP FAS 140-3: Plugging a Hole in GAAP — Or Another Off-Balance Sheet Financing Gimmick?
and
http://www.straffordpub.com/products/fasb-statement-167-consolidation-of-variable-interest-entities-2009-09-09
FASB Statement 167: Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I NOW understand why there is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde quality to otherwise informative postings.
ALLAN
B e M o v e d @ AOL . c o m
THE WARNING
“Amidst the 1990s’ bullmarket, there was one lone regulator who warned about derivatives’ dangers — and suddenly became the enemy of some of the most powerful people in Washington…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We didn’t truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market,” says BROOKSLEY BORN, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) — who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country’s key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. “They were totally opposed to it,” Born says. “That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In THE WARNING, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds BROOKSLEY BORN, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.
“I didn’t know Brooksley Born,” says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton’s powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. “I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable.” Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group — former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin — convinced him that Born’s attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was “clearly a mistake.”
Born’s battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President’s Working Group vehemently opposed regulation — especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.
“I walk into Brooksley’s office one day; the blood has drained from her face,” says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. “She’s hanging up the telephone; she says to me: ‘That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, “You’re going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II.”… [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'”
Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. “Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming,” Kirk says. “Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves.”
Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, THE WARNING reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.
“It’ll happen again if we don’t take the appropriate steps,” Born warns. “There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Video Timeline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/cron/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANALYSIS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/themes/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“And I sincerely believe, with you, that BANKING ESTABLISHMENTS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STANDING ARMIES; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
Source: Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of THOMAS JEFFERSON, vol. 4, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, ed., 1829, pp. 285-288.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For a Libertarian rebuttal go to: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/10/alert-major-distortion-of-financial.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It all starts out with an homage to the beliefs of Ayn Rand and her devoted Objectivist acolyte Alan Greenspan.
One point of contention that pitted Born against her adversaries Greenspan, Rubin and Summers was her insistence financial FRAUD should NOT be tolerated and should be investigated and prosecuted, wherever found.
Given how recovering banking interests are apparently now successfully attempting to gut a proposed financial regulatory scheme (using taxpayer money to fund the very lobbyists who work against the public’s interest) we are likely to repeat the fiasco we are now enduring, over and over again, until these institutions lose their death grip on the levers of power.
ALLAN
B E M O V E D @ A O L . c o m
Would someone please explain the meaning of the following and opine as to whether or not the “covenant” extends to defending breaks in the chain of title, resulting from a breach of contract and failure to transfer and record a mortgage assignment:
“Borrower covenants that Borrower will warrant and defend generally the title to the Mortgaged Property against all claims and demands, subject to any easements and restrictions listed in the Schedule of Title Exceptions. ”
T