THE BIGGEST SCUMBAG BANK, DEUTSCHE BANK, ON EARTH…

 

 

FORECLOSURE FRAUD – DEUTSCH BANK MEMO NOTIFIES SECURITIZED LOAN SERVICERS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS THAT THEY MAY HAVE BROKEN THE LAW

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on November 3, 2010 · 1 Comment

First some excerpts from ForeclosureDefenseNationwide

In an October 25, 2010 letter from Deutsche Bank to “All Holders of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities For Which Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas Acts As Securitization Trustee”, DB reports on “alleged deficiencies” in certain foreclosure proceedings and advises of the prior issuance, by the DB Trustee, of an “Urgent and Time-Sensitive Memorandum” dated October 8, 2010 to its Securitization Loan Servicers regarding servicing foreclosure procedures, demanding that the servicers “comply with all applicable laws relating to foreclosures”.

The October 8, 2010 “Urgent and Time Sensitive” Memorandum attached to the October 25, 2010 Memo makes things even more interesting. Here are some select quotes:

“The Governing Documents typically require the Trustee to furnish the Servicer with powers of attorney that allow the Servicer to sign documents and institute legal actions, including foreclosure proceedings, in the name of the Trustee on behalf of the Trusts in connection with these servicing activities…. Recent media reports suggest that the Alleged Foreclosure Deficiencies may include the execution and filing by certain servicers and their agents of potentially defective documents, possibly containing alleged untrue assertions of fact, in connection with certain foreclosure proceedings. The reported scope of such alleged practices raises the possibility that such documents may have been filed in connection with foreclosure proceedings relating to mortgage loans owned by the Trusts and may have been executed under color of one or more powers of attorney granted to Servicers pursuant to the Governing Documents. Any such actions by a servicer or its agents would constitute a breach of that Servicer’s obligations under the Governing Documents and applicable law.”

So what we have here is DB tacitly admitting that its servicers and attorneys “possibly” filed fraudulent foreclosure documents (which we all know did in fact happen, with “robo-signer” assignments, backdated notaries, etc.), which if done “under color of” required powers of attorney, is illegal on more than one front.

Well isn’t that interesting…

Full memo, plus others, below…

Enjoy!

~

4closureFraud.org

Advertisements

FUCK YOU OBAMA. THE IMBECILE SCUMBAG PRESIDENT

This is for telling people they’re deadbeats. YOU GOT YOUR HOUSE PAID BY THE SAME SCUMBAG THAT BOMBED PLACES IN THE 60’S. SCUMBAG BANK, CHASE, ALSO CLEARED ANOTHER HOME. WHO’S THE DEADBEAT NOW, IMBECILE?

WHAT DID WE EXPECT FROM AN INEXPERIENCED ILLEGAL ALIEN?

Oct. 18, 2010 — Foreclosures In Missouri Wayne Godsey, KMBC President And General Manager

HOW MUCH $ IS THIS SCUMBAG AG GETTING PAID BY THE BANKSTERS?

POSTED: 7:27 pm CDT October 18, 2010


KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster made the right call when he chose not to interfere with home foreclosures in the state. 

Koster’s decision was in response to a request from Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser and a group called Communities Creating Opportunities. 

It is sad to see anyone lose their home, particularly when it’s the result of a lost job or other unfortunate circumstances. But many people simply paid too much for homes, thinking that values could only increase. 

Some lenders like Bank of America and Chase have voluntarily suspended foreclosures in order to review internal procedures. If faulty practices exist, they say they’ll correct them. 

But a government-dictated moratorium is a bad idea, just like the government lending policies that created the mortgage crisis. If individuals can’t pay their mortgages, foreclosures are necessary to stabilize the real estate market, for the benefit of homeowners and lenders alike.

 

SCUMBAG WELLS FARGO TO BE FOCUS OF OHIO FORECLOSURE FRAUD PROBE

 

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 28, 2010 ·

“These people think they can play by a different set of rules.”

~

“It’s not just individuals who signed flawed affidavits. It’s a business model designed on fraud.”

~

Bloomberg

WELLS FARGO TO BE FOCUS OF OHIO FORECLOSURE PROBE

Wells Fargo & Co. will be a focus of an investigation into foreclosure practices, Ohio Attorney GeneralRichard Cordray told Bloomberg Television after the lender said it found flaws in court documents.

Wells Fargo said yesterday that it would submit supplemental affidavits to courts in about 55,000 foreclosure proceedings after finding some statements “did not strictly adhere to the required procedures.”

“These people think they can play by a different set of rules,” Cordray said in an interview today on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness with Margaret Brennan.” “It’s not just individuals who signed flawed affidavits. It’s a business model designed on fraud.”

Teri Schrettenbrunner, a spokeswoman for San Francisco- based Wells Fargo, said in an e-mail that none of the paperwork problems have led to foreclosures that shouldn’t have otherwise occurred and the problems aren’t related to the quality of loan data.

“We have chosen to submit supplemental affidavits out of an abundance of caution,” she said. “We intend to be responsive to General Cordray’s inquiries and look forward to addressing his concerns.”

Head over to Bloomberg to read more with video here…

No widespread problem here, right Wells?

 

VIDEO – SHERIFF TOM DART, EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHY HE WON’T ENFORCE FORECLOSURE EVICTIONS

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 21, 2010 ·

Sheriff Tom Dart

“This is not the lotto… this isn’t something where we’re rolling the dice and saying, possibly this has been done legally. Maybe it hasn’t but in the meantime, you and your children go find someplace else to live, plenty of homeless shelters out there. We can’t do that.”

AND SO IT BEGINS – CHICAGO SHERIFF SAYS NO TO ENFORCING FORECLOSURES

The sheriff for Cook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago, said on Tuesday he will not enforce foreclosure evictions for Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase and Co. and GMAC Mortgage/Ally Financial until they prove those foreclosures were handled “properly and legally.”

Bank of America, the largest U.S. mortgage servicer, and GMAC, on Monday both announced rollbacks from their foreclosure moratoriums.

The announcement by Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart comes after weeks of damaging accusations of shoddy paperwork that may have caused some people to be illegally evicted from their homes.

“I can’t possibly be expected to evict people from their homes when the banks themselves can’t say for sure everything was done properly,” Dart said in the statement.

“I need some kind of assurance that we aren’t evicting families based on fraudulent behavior by the banks. Until that happens, I can’t in good conscience keep carrying out evictions involving these banks,” he added.

Or as Denniger puts it…

Here’s a message to all the County Sheriff’s: Tell the banks to **** off!

The sheriff for Cook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago, said on Tuesday he will not enforce foreclosure evictions for Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase and Co. and GMAC Mortgage/Ally Financial until they prove those foreclosures were handled “properly and legally.”

Imagine that: A lawman who understands that The Bill of Rights actually applies to the people!

The 5th Amendment, specifically: You may not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.

“Robosigned” documents violate that right.  So does perjury in court proceedings.

“I need some kind of assurance that we aren’t evicting families based on fraudulent behavior by the banks. Until that happens, I can’t in good conscience keep carrying out evictions involving these banks,” he added.

Now that’s even better.  Will Sheriff Dart extend this all the way back to the origination of these loans, their pooling into securities, and questions about whether or not they were in fact sold more than once, rendering the person who claims to be foreclosing not necessarily the real party at interest?

What if the note has been bifurcated and nobody has a right to foreclose? Sue to collect, yes.  Foreclose, maybe not.

Let’s see lawmen and lawwomen all across this nation refuse to accede to the banksters demands until they prove that the law was complied with – up and down the line.

Sheriffs are elected officials.

The elections are coming.

We the people must demand that each and every Sheriff standing for election take a position on this – will you stop enforcing foreclosures NOW and continue to do so until the banks prove that each and every one is 100% legal, including all required transfers and endorsements, from origination to eviction?

Battle Lines Forming in Clash Over Foreclosures

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and ANDREW MARTIN

About a month after Washington Mutual Bank made a multimillion-dollar mortgage loan on a mountain home near Santa Barbara, Calif., a crucial piece of paperwork disappeared.

But bank officials were unperturbed. After conducting a “due and diligent search,” an assistant vice president simply drew up an affidavit stating that the paperwork — a promissory note committing the borrower to repay the mortgage — could not be found, according to court documents.

The handling of that lost note in 2006 was hardly unusual. Mortgage documents of all sorts were treated in an almost lackadaisical way during the dizzying mortgage lending spree from 2005 through 2007, according to court documents, analysts and interviews.

Now those missing and possibly fraudulent documents are at the center of a potentially seismic legal clash that pits big lenders against homeowners and their advocates concerned that the lenders’ rush to foreclose flouts private property rights.

That clash — expected to be played out in courtrooms across the country and scrutinized by law enforcement officials investigating possible wrongdoing by big lenders — leaped to the forefront of the mortgage crisis this week as big lenders began lifting their freezes on foreclosures and insisted the worst was behind them.

Federal officials meeting in Washington on Wednesday indicated that a government review of the problems would not be complete until the end of the year.

In short, the legal disagreement amounts to whether banks can rely on flawed documentation to repossess homes.

While even critics of the big lenders acknowledge that the vast majority of foreclosures involve homeowners who have not paid their mortgages, they argue that the borrowers are entitled to due legal process.

Banks “have essentially sidestepped 400 years of property law in the United States,” said Rebel A. Cole, a professor of finance and real estate at DePaul University. “There are so many questionable aspects to this thing it’s scary.”

Others are more sanguine about the dispute.

Joseph R. Mason, a finance professor who holds the Louisiana Bankers Association chair at Louisiana State University, said that concerns about proper foreclosure documentation were overblown. At the end of the day, he said, even if the banks botched the paperwork, homeowners who didn’t make their mortgage payments still needed to be held accountable.

“You borrowed money,” he said. “You are obligated to repay it.”

After freezing most foreclosures, Bank of America, the largest consumer bank in the country, said this week that it would soon resume foreclosures in about half of the country because it was confident that the cases had been properly documented.GMAC Mortgage said it was also proceeding with foreclosures, on a case-by-case basis.

While some other banks have also suggested they can wrap up faulty foreclosures in a matter of weeks, some judges, lawyers for homeowners and real estate experts like Mr. Cole expect the courts to be inundated with challenges to the banks’ actions.

“This is ultimately going to have to be resolved by the 50 state supreme courts who have jurisdiction for property law,” Professor Cole predicted.

Defaulting homeowners in states like Florida, among the hardest hit by foreclosures, are already showing up in bigger numbers this week to challenge repossessions. And judges in some states have halted or delayed foreclosures because of improper documentation. Court cases are likely to hinge on whether judges believe that banks properly fulfilled their legal obligations during the mortgage boom — and in the subsequent rush to expedite foreclosures.

The country’s mortgage lenders contend that any problems that might be identified are technical and will not change the fact that they have the right to foreclose en masse.

“We did a thorough review of the process, and we found the facts underlying the decision to foreclose have been accurate,” Barbara J. Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, said earlier this week. “We paused while we were doing that, and now we’re moving forward.”

Some analysts are not sure that banks can proceed so freely. Katherine M. Porter, a visiting law professor at Harvard University and an expert on consumer credit law, said that lenders were wrong to minimize problems with the legal documentation.

“The misbehavior is clear: they lied to the courts,” she said. “The fact that they are saying no one was harmed, they are missing the point. They did actual harm to the court system, to the rule of law. We don’t say, ‘You can perjure yourself on the stand because the jury will come to the right verdict anyway.’ That’s what they are saying.”

Robert Willens, a tax expert, said that documentation issues had created potentially severe tax problems for investors in mortgage securities and that “there is enough of a question here that the courts might well have to resolve the issue.”

As the legal system begins sorting through the competing claims, one thing is not in dispute: the pell-mell origination of mortgage loans during the real estate boom and the patchwork of financial machinery and documentation that supported it were created with speed and profits in mind, and with little attention to detail.

Once the foreclosure wheels started turning, said analysts, practices became even shoddier.

For example, the foreclosure business often got so busy at the Plantation, Fla., law offices of David J. Stern — and so many documents had to be signed so banks could evict people from their homes — that a supervisor sometimes was too tired to write her own name.

When that happened, Cheryl Samons, the supervisor at the firm, who typically signed about 1,000 documents a day, just let someone else sign for her, court papers show.

“Cheryl would give certain paralegals rights to sign her name, because most of the time she was very tired, exhausted from signing her name numerous times per day,” said Kelly Scott, a Stern employee, in a deposition that the Florida attorney general released on Monday. A lawyer representing the law firm said Ms. Samons would not comment.

Bill McCollum, Florida’s attorney general, is investigating possible abuses at the Stern firm, a major foreclosure mill in the state, involving false or fabricated loan documents, calling into question the foreclosures the firm set in motion on behalf of banks.

That problem extends far beyond Florida.

As lenders and Wall Street firms bundled thousands of mortgage loans into securities so they could be sold quickly, efficiently and lucratively to legions of investors, slipshod practices took hold among lenders and their representatives, former employees of these operations say.

Banks routinely failed to record each link in the chain of documents that demonstrate ownership of a note and a property, according to court documents, analysts and interviews. When problems arose, executives and managers at lenders and loan servicers sometimes patched such holes by issuing affidavits meant to prove control of a mortgage.

In Broward County, Fla., alone, more than 1,700 affidavits were filed in the last two years attesting to lost notes, according to Legalprise, a legal services company that tracks foreclosure data.

When many mortgage loans went bad in the last few years, lenders outsourced crucial tasks like verifying the amount a borrower owed or determining which institution had a right to foreclose.

Now investors who bought mortgage trusts — investment vehicles composed of mortgages — are wondering if the loans inside them were recorded properly. If not, tax advantages of the trusts could be wiped out, leaving mortgage securities investors with significant tax bills.

For years, lenders bringing foreclosure cases commonly did not have to demonstrate proof of ownership of the note. Consumer advocates and consumer lawyers have complained about the practice, to little avail.

But a decision in October 2007 by Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Federal District Court in northern Ohio to toss out 14 foreclosure cases put lenders on notice. Judge Boyko ruled that the entities trying to seize properties had not proved that they actually owned the notes, and he blasted the banks for worrying “less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns.”

He also said that lenders “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance.” Now that their practices were “put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate,” the judge ruled.

Yet aside from the actions of a few random judges, little was done to force lenders to change their practices or slow things down. Since March 2009, more than 300,000 property owners a month have received foreclosure notices or lost their home in a foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks foreclosure listings.

What finally prompted a re-examination of the foreclosure wave was the disclosure in court documents over the last several months of so-called robo-signers, employees like Ms. Samons of the Stern law firm in Florida who signed affidavits so quickly that they could not possibly have verified the information in the document under review.

Lenders and their representatives have sought to minimize the significance of robo-signing and, while acknowledging legal lapses in how they documented loans, have argued that foreclosures should proceed anyway. After all, the lenders say, the homeowners owe the money.

People who have worked at loan servicers for many years, who requested anonymity to protect their jobs, said robo-signing and other questionable foreclosure practices emanated from one goal: to increase efficiency and therefore profits. That rush, they say, allowed for the shoddy documentation that is expected to become evidence for homeowners in the coming court battles.

For example, years ago when banks made loans, they typically stored promissory notes in their vaults.

But the advent of securitization, in which loans are bundled and sold to investors, required that loan documents move quickly from one purchaser to another. Big banks servicing these loans began in 2002 to automate their systems, according to a former executive for a top servicer who requested anonymity because of a confidentiality agreement.

First to go was the use of actual people to determine who should be liable to a foreclosure action. They were replaced by computers that identified delinquent borrowers and automatically sent them letters saying they were in default. Inexperienced clerical workers often entered incorrect mortgage information into the computer programs, the former executive said, and borrowers rarely caught the errors.

Other record-keeping problems that are likely to become fodder for court battles involve endorsements, a process that occurs when notes are transferred and validated with a stamp to identify the institution that bought it. Eager to cut costs, most institutions left the notes blank, with no endorsements at all.

Problems are also likely to arise in court involving whether those who signed documents required in foreclosures actually had the authority to do so — or if the documents themselves are even authentic.

For example, Frederick B. Tygart, a circuit court judge overseeing a foreclosure case in Duval County, Fla., recently ruled that agents representing Deutsche Bankrelied on documents that “must have been counterfeited.” He stopped the foreclosure. Deutsche Bank had no comment on Wednesday.

Cynthia Veintemillas, the lawyer representing the borrower in the case, Patrick Jeffs, said the paperwork surrounding her client’s foreclosure was riddled with problems.

“Everybody knows the banks screwed up and loaned out money to people who couldn’t pay it back,” she said. “Why are people surprised that they don’t know what they are doing here either?”

Meanwhile, another judge on Wednesday indicated that the courts would not simply sign off on the banks’ documentation. Jonathan Lippman, the chief judge of New York’s courts, ordered lawyers to verify the validity of all foreclosure paperwork.

“We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs — such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis,” Judge Lippman said in a statement.

 

Time for Some New Stress Tests for {SCUMBAG}Banks

By SIMON JOHNSON
Today's Economist

Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is a co-author of “13 Bankers.”

How much damage to the financial system should we expect from what is now commonly called the foreclosure morass, the developing scandal involving document robo-signing (and robo-dockets), completely messed up mortgage paperwork and highly publicized inquiries into accusations of systematic and deliberate misbehavior by banks?

The damage to banks’ reputation is immeasurable. They have undermined property rights — the ability to establish clear title is a founding idea of the American republic. They have mistreated customers in a completely unacceptable manner. If people doubted the need for a new consumer protection agency dealing with financial products — and the importance of having a clear-thinking reformer like Elizabeth Warren at its head — they have presumably been silenced by recent events. (If you need to get up to speed on the basics of this issue, see this series of posts by Mike Konczal.)

But what is the cost in terms of additional likely losses to big banks? The likely size and nature of these are leading to exactly the kind of systemic risks that the Financial Stability Oversight Council was recently established to anticipate and deal with.

It is hard to know how the precise numbers for losses will end up; so much uncertainty remains about the basic parameters of the foreclosure problem. A lot of smart people are looking for ways to sue the big banks — in particular to force them to take back (at face value) securities that were issued based on some underlying degree of deception.

This is a fast-evolving situation in which every day brings potentially significant news, but our baseline view is that the losses are in the range of $50 billion to $100 billion — that is, these are “new” losses not yet recognized by banks. (Our downside possibility, with perhaps a 10 percent probability, is that the losses are much larger.) Most of this is so-called putbacks to the banks from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, meaning that the banks are forced to take back onto their books the underlying securities (and absorb the associated losses) if there was significant misrepresentation in the original documentation.

In almost all cases, these additional losses will remain an order of magnitude smaller than the trillions of dollars in credit losses that brought down the global financial system in 2008-9. Still, these latest losses are not helpful to confidence in big banks, and the continuing uncertainty, which is entirely the banks’ fault, will make their managements more cautious about extending new credit.

Capital is the buffer that banks hold against losses, and banks really do not want to raise more capital under current conditions. Their executives’ fear about potentially having insufficient capital will further undermine loan availability, even for creditworthy borrowers. This is exactly what the economic recovery does not need.

In addition, Bank of America is a particular worry, because its capital position is already precarious, and any downgrade by rating agencies will push it into dangerous territory. To the extent the market believes that the government does not stand fully or immediately behind Bank of America (a view expressed by Morgan Stanley analysts in a note this week), we should expect pressures reminiscent of fall 2008.

We also learned this week of sizable additional potential exposure from the lawsuit filed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco and BlackRock — seeking to force Bank of America to buy back bad mortgages packaged into $47 billion of mortgage-backed securities issued by Countrywide.

The best approach would be a fresh set of stress tests, resulting in the requirement that Bank of America and perhaps other banks need to raise a specified dollar amount of capital (not hit a particular capital-asset ratio, as that would just result in further dumping of assets), and reassuring the market that other banks have sufficient capital, including under the augmented Basel III requirements. (For a primer on capital requirements and the thinking that underlies the approach we are recommending, see a post I wrote with Peter Boone on Oct. 7.)

Created by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council has plenty of power to order and organize such stress tests. In fact, because of the powers granted to the council under the Kanjorski Amendment, the country’s top regulators have a complete menu of choices available in terms of what they can require banks to do in order to reduce risks to the system (up to and including pre-emptively breaking up big troubled banks).

The foreclosure morass clearly poses systemic risk, both through its general effects on uncertainty about losses and because any manifest weakness at one big bank could spread — in some obvious ways and in some unanticipated ways — through the rest of the system.

In addition, the stress tests of 2009 (known as the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program) did not consider the possibility of large losses arising from the litigation now surrounding mortgage-backed securities. When Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina, asked Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner about this at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Sept. 22, the exchange went like this:

MILLER, asking about possible breach of contract in securitized mortgages: Was potential liability on these theories taken into account at all in the stress test? I mean, the securitizers, who presumably would be the defendants in any litigation, are the 19 biggest banks that got the stress tests. Was their potential liability taken into account at all in the stress tests a year ago?

GEITHNER: I don’t think so.

Mr. Geithner also said he would take this question up in more detail with his colleagues at the Federal Reserve, which administered the 2009 stress tests. The exchange can be heard in full online, with the Miller-Geithner exchange at about the 42-minute mark.

The only fair, reasonable, and safe way to handle this situation is to order a fresh round of stress tests for all systemically important financial institutions. The stress case should consider not just the current dismal macroeconomic prognosis (and the potential for another slip back into recession) but also the downside with regard to litigation losses.

If the Financial Stability Oversight Council refuses to act decisively in this regard, a vital piece of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms will have failed.

 

CLASS ACTION AGAINST THE MAJOR SCUMBAG LAWFIRMS

Below is a Class Action against all the major SCUMBAG law firms defrauding people.

class56

Foreclosuregate: Sue The SCUMBAG Judges Who Allow Fake Foreclosures

By bgamall

 

In the Light of Foreclosuregate There Are Thousands of Bad Judges

In the light of Foreclosuregate, not so named by CNBC and the bankster crowd, there are many bad judges. In fact, the definition of a bad judge isone who fails to protect the unrepresented. Many people are being foreclosed on. And they are not being represented, as the alleged holder of the mortgage and IOU actually gets the judge to look the other way, as it is found that the servicer of the mortgage does not have the IOU. Foreclosures have been allowed by crooked judges in cases where the IOU has been lost! And why were they lost? Well, it was because of the need for companies to hide the crap loans put together in the MBS bankster scam.

So, the problem is that you have very unethical judges who are rubber stamping a foreclosure without the IOU being in anyone’s possession. There are two issues that make this a serious offense:

1. The courthouse does not have the IOU. The courthouse has a copy of the deed, but not the IOU. But the IOU is required in order to determine the terms of the loan, and the owner of the mortgage.In many cases, the IOU has been lost, and in many cases was hidden or lost on purpose in order to fool investors into buying mortgage backed securities, you know, the crap bonds that were rated AAA but that really had junk attached!

2. Since the IOU has to be registered with the trustee of the MBS at the investment bank within a certain period, Title is clouded and broken when the investment bankster wants to hide this bad loan from potential investors. As it turns out, the investment banksters never bothered to convey the documents to the trustee of the Mortgage Backed Securities in the first place. This is both mortgage and securities fraud and it breaks the Title. In reality, these trustees don’t own these mortgages because the IOU’s cannot be reconstituted.

Table of Contents

  • In the Light of Foreclosuregate There Are Thousands of Bad Judges
  • It Is Difficult to Sue Judges Without First Exposing Them
  • So How Does the UCC Code Affect Foreclosures
  • Foreclosuregate In the News
  • Foreclosuregate Information
  • Facing Foreclosure Issues? Here Are Foreclosure Resources

 

It Is Difficult to Sue Judges Without First Exposing Them

The first part of the process is to expose judges. If there is a judge that allows a phony IOU, list that judge with Caught.net or here.

Judges who are doing fraudulent things at the state level, like foreclosures, can be sued in Federal Court. It is difficult to sue a judge. And yet, perhaps a class action against judges would at least publicize their behavior so that they would be more reluctant to go along with the bankster claims of title.

However, it is possible to appeal. And people with the means who want to make the court own up to injustice can do so.

We know that Florida has a bunch of Kangaroo courts, rubber stamping foreclosures that have no clear title. Naked Capitalism Blog has been at the forefront of this exposure of judicial misconduct.

In order to buy some time for the borrower, it is time to clog the courts with paper. I advocate clogging the courts with all manner of lawsuits and motions. People need to stay in their houses as long as they can, because they have been scammed in the first place. Yes, the scam is primarily an injustice against investors, but no one can doubt that borrowers have been scammed by this process as well. Just learning about Foreclosuregate will make it clear that borrowers have been victims of a process that would have been stopped dead in its tracks had investors had access to the IOU’s showing how bad the loans were that went into the MBS’s. Investors would have stopped buying these fraudulent bonds long ago.

As it is, since these securities, the MBS’s, are fraudulent, I hope investors seek major damages from the investment banksters. That will be a start. We need to discuss whether securitization for mortgages is something that should even be permitted.

 

Squat In Your Own Home. Don’t Pay. Show Me the Note!

So How Does the UCC Code Affect Foreclosures.

First a disclaimer, this is not legal advice. This webpage does not in any way tell you how to proceed but rather gives some possible suggestions that you may be able to explore with your attorney.

So, as it turns out, the UCC Code generally requires that the proof of transfer from the lender to the investment bank can be proven. The IOU can be reconstructed if this link can be proven. There may be other laws which say title is broken, and in those cases, Title Insurance Companies may choose to hold off. But UCC requires a connection regarding transfer. This is where the banksters made a major fraud. The investment bankers who took these mortgages from the lenders never conveyed the documents. Since there was no proof of transfer, the bonds or I should say the trust for the bonds do not own the mortgages. This is major mortgage and securities fraud. This is where the court has to be careful that there are not a lot of phony documents. Congress should pass a law with serious penalties for those caught forging documents, getting fake notaries, etc. But congress was intent on doing just the opposite, as Diana Olick exposed regarding the robo signatures.

The courts that refuse to require proof of this transfer link must be exposed and their judges held up to severe ridicule. Lets hope that happens in the coming months.

Judge Ignorant of UCC Rules Against Borrower

Foreclosuregate In the News

  • Cuccinelli to join foreclosure probeRichmond Times-Dispatch6 days agoThe possible mishandling of mortgage documents has hit home. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said yesterday that he, along with attorneys general in the other 49 states, will look into allegations of abuse in the foreclosure process.
  • Lawmakers Increasing Heat on Servicers on the Foreclosure Front While Regulators Try to Give a PassNaked Capitalism28 hours agoAt least some legislators are taking the foreclosure crisis seriously. Representative John Conyers, Marcy Kaptur, Raúl Grijalva, and Alan Grayson wrote to Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to ask that he investigate foreclosure fraud and conduct an audit of GMAC, Fannie, and Freddie. SIGTARP is a full fledged […]
  • Foreclosure mess just startingThe Bryan-College Station Eagle22 hours agoWASHINGTON — Big lenders are trying to move past the foreclosure-document mess, saying they’re now confident their paperwork is accurate. Yet they face so much organized resistance that they can’t just snap up their briefcases, declare the crisis …
  • Johnstown man sues GMAC Mortgage, alleges fraud in foreclosure processNewark Advocate4 days agoNEWARK — The inevitable legal response to allegations of fraud on foreclosure documents reached Licking County on Friday with a Johnstown man’s lawsuit against GMAC Mortgage and one of its employees.
  • Avoiding the ‘f’ wordDaily Sparks Tribune25 hours agoRENO — To a homeowner who is facing foreclosure, all hope might seem lost, but housing counselors are available to help.


Foreclosuregate Information

Facing Foreclosure Issues? Here Are Foreclosure Resources

Jennifer Brunner Fights The Banksters

Attorney Resources: Save the Constitution

Bad Judge List

Here are judges who have decided not to watch out for the underrepresented. Phone them and tell them to follow the law. Tell them to throw the bogus affidavits out of their courthouses! This is about due process and the validity of evidence you bad judge shills for big banksters.

W. Douglas Baird (727) 464-3233

Jack Cox (561) 355-3496

J. Rogers Padgett

Bad Attorney List:

Attorneys listed here may have violated evidence requirements and due process in courts of law. Innocent until proven guilty, but we hope they will be criminally investigated.

Steven Baum New York

David Stern Florida

 

A Good Ruling By Good Judges (At Least In This Ruling)

Arkansas Supreme Court Ruling, yet bad judges have ignored this for over a year:

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., APPELLANT, VS. SOUTHWEST HOMES OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

No. 08-1299

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

2009 Ark. LEXIS 121

March 19, 2009, Opinion Delivered

Further, under Arkansas foreclosure law, a deed of trust is defined as “a deed conveying real property in trust to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor or any other person named in the deed to a beneficiary and conferring upon the trustee a power of sale for breach of an obligation of the grantor contained in the deed of trust.” Ark. Code Ann. § 18-50-101(2) (Repl. 2003). Thus, under the statutes, and under the common law noted above, a deed of trust grants to the trustee the powers MERS purports to hold. Those powers were held by East as trustee. Those powers were not conveyed to MERS.

MERS holds no authority to act as an agent and holds no property interest in the mortgaged land. It is not a necessary party. In [*11] this dispute over foreclosure on the subject real property under the mortgage and the deed of trust, complete relief may be granted whether or not MERS is a party. MERS has no interest to protect. It simply was not a necessary party. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a). MERS’s role in this transaction casts no light on the contractual issues on appeal in this case. See, e.g., Wilmans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 355 Ark. 668, 144 S.W.3d 245 (2004).

Finally, we note that Arkansas is a recording state. Notice of transactions in real property is provided by recording. See Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-404 (Supp. 2007). Southwest is entitled to rely upon what is filed of record. In the present case, MERS was at best the agent of the lender. The only recorded document provides notice that Pulaski Mortgage is the lender and, therefore, MERS’s principal. MERS asserts Pulaski Mortgage is not its principal. Yet no other lender recorded its interest as an assignee of Pulaski Mortgage. Permitting an agent such as MERS purports to be to step in and act without a recorded lender directing its action would wreak havoc on notice in this state.

Affirmed.

 


Largest US Title Insurer To Demand Indemnity And Foreclosure Warranty From Banks

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/20/2010 14:55 -0500

The good news: title insurers may be getting back into the game. The bad news: they will demand indemnity and warranties from the issuing bank assuring their paperwork is sound before backing sales of foreclosed homes. At least this is what the largest title insurer in the US, Fidelity National, will do going forward (which makes one wonder just what exactly FNF’s job function is if the mortgage issuing bank, such as BofA, now caught in too numerous RoboSigning scandals to mention, essentially takes over the title guarantee process…) From Bloomberg: “An indemnity covering “incompetent or erroneous affidavit testimony or documentation” must be signed for all foreclosure sales closing on or after Nov. 1, the Jacksonville, Florida- based company said in a memorandum to employees today. The agreement was prepared in consultation with the American Land Title Association and mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Fidelity National said.” And what happens if the bank is once again caught to be, gulp, lying? Who foots the bill then? Why the buyer of course. All this does is to remove the liability from companies like Fidelity National and puts it back to BofA, which is already so much underwater it has no chance of really getting out without TARP, contrarian Goldman propaganda notwithstanding.

More from Bloomberg:

“It’s just the prudent thing to do,” Peter Sadowski, executive vice president and chief legal officer for Fidelity National, said in an interview. “It is important for the servicers and the lenders to represent to us and to the people we are going to be insuring that there are no problems.”

Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender, agreed to a similar contract with Fidelity National on Oct. 8, the same day it extended a freeze on foreclosures to all states amid concern by federal and state officials that lenders are seizing homes without properly reviewing documents. The bank plans to start resubmitting foreclosure affidavits next week. Attorneys general across the country have opened a joint investigation into foreclosures, saying they will seek an immediate halt to any improper practices at mortgage lenders and loan servicers.

Title insurers use their records and public documents to verify a seller is the home’s true owner and that the property is free from liens. They collect a one-time premium at the closing of the purchase and pay costs that may arise if someone disputes the new owner’s right to the property.

The indemnity agreement requires lenders to protect title insurers at their own expense from “any and all liability, loss, costs, damage and expense of every kind” if errors arise in foreclosure procedures, according to the document.

The expenses may include attorney’s fees, a decrease in the property’s value and inability to sell the title, Fidelity said in the document. The lender must also notify the insurer in each case that a foreclosure complies with state laws and regulations, according to the agreement.

The indemnity agreement is available for use by all title insurers, Fidelity National said.

The American Land Title Association, which is nothing but a lap dog for the bankers, of course applauded this development: after all there are millions in pending foreclosures to be done.

“This is a standard all lenders should follow,” said Kurt Pfotenhauer, chief executive officer of the American Land Title Association, a Washington-based trade group. “The sooner that indemnification agreement is adopted market-wide, the more confidence investors can have in this foreclosure market.”

At this point it is only a question of who can kick the massive mortgage fraud can the farthest down the road, before it all comes crashing down. In the meantime, we can get back to more important things: like record banker bonuses due to be paid in a few months (of the pre-TARP 2 version).