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

Former secretary says signatures were faked at {SCUMBAG} law firm being investigated over foreclosures

The Associated Press

By MIKE SCHNEIDER and TAMARA LUSH Associated Press Writers
ORLANDO, Fla. October 18, 2010 (AP)
EmailTwitterFacebook
More
An office manager at a Florida law firm under investigation for fabricating foreclosure documents would sign her name to 1,000 files a day without reviewing them and would allow paralegals to sign her name for her when she got tired, her former secretary said in a deposition released Monday.

Cheryl Salmons, office manager for the foreclosure department at the law offices of David Stern, would sign 500 files in the morning and another 500 files in the afternoon without reviewing them and with no witnesses, said former assistant Kelly Scott in a deposition released by the Florida attorney general’s office.

The files were laid out on a conference room table for Salmons to sign, the former secretary said.

“She doesn’t review them. She just looks,” Scott said. “The paper is going to be in the top folder so it’s visible to her, and she knows exactly where she has to put her signature.”

Paralegals would then collect the files and swap them with each other, signing them as witnesses even though they had already been notarized and executed, Scott said.

Salmons allowed some paralegals to sign her name for her, said the former assistant, who worked at the firm for a year in 2008.

“Most of the time she was very tired, exhausted from signing her name numerous times per day,” Scott said. “You have to understand it was more than 500 files that she is signing morning and afternoon.”

The deposition took place two weeks ago as part of the attorney general’s investigation into the law firm.
Another deposition released Monday was of Mary Cordova, who worked at G&Z Process for two months. Stern’s law firm used G&Z as a process server for foreclosures.

Cordova said when she was hired, she was told that she needed to process at least 22 cases per eight-hour shift.

“It was almost like we didn’t have time to really look at what we were doing,” she said during her deposition. “It’s like this is the particular information, input that, turn that page, here’s this piece of information, type that in. It’s more about speed than accuracy per se. Although a supervisor would look at the papers to see if they’re pretty accurate.”

Jeffrey Tew, an attorney for Stern’s firm, didn’t immediately return a phone call.

Matt Weidner, a St. Petersburg attorney who has been defending homeowners whose paperwork was signed by lawyers in Stern’s office, said the latest depositions reveal that lawyers aren’t abiding by the rules and judges aren’t doing their jobs by scrutinizing foreclosure cases.

“I am literally getting to the point of speechlessness,” Weidner said. “The federal government has to come in and take control of the Florida foreclosure court system. If this stuff is occurring, it’s a crisis of confidence in our courts. It really calls into question the legitimacy of a court system.”

.

 

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.