Archive | March, 2012

Negative Equity Rising and Still Understated

31 Mar

Livinglies's Weblog

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & CommentaryCLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Negative Equity Rising and Still Understated

Editor’s Comment: 

In our pretend world which is being narrated by the Banks, the housing crisis is easing, people are starting to buy foreclosed homes for investment and domicile, and the defects in documentation were just paperwork problems that will get fixed. The foreclosures are real, we are told, the banks hold the assets on their balance sheets, the auctions were valid, the credit bids were properly accepted by the auctioneer as a no-cash offer from a bona fide creditor. Planted articles and stories across the media spectrum would have us believe that the worst is behind us.

In the real world, even those who wish to portray the housing market to be in some stage of recovery admit that the number of homes with negative equity is increasing…

View original post 663 more words

Why Should Homeowners Fight Back Against Foreclosure? Because it’s a Crime!

31 Mar

Foreclosure Nation

Rights are like Muscles, if you don’t use them, you loose them. Unfortunately, that has been the case regarding many rights we thought would never be questioned but which are constantly being challenged and difficult to defend. Even laws that were made to protect the people are being twisted, ignored, or reversed to protect corporations in order that they may take advantage of the people.

Such is the current situation with the massive nationwide foreclosure fraud. There is no longer any dispute that these banks committed massive crimes but the rights of the people are now being denied for Due Process. The right to defend in a court of law against any claims you may have of being violated, is being denied repeatedly.

Failure to protest the denial of  your right to Due Process will soon render this right null and void.  In the courts in California, Judges are routinely…

View original post 140 more words

March 12 Occupy The Crime Scene

31 Mar

Foreclosure Nation

Folks in many counties throughout California will be gathering at local County Recorders’ offices to protest the lack of action taken in protection of homeowners experiencing fraudulent foreclosures and gross errors in real property records.

Locally this protest will take place at the Ventura County Recorder’s office from 10:30 to early afternoon.  Please take time to show up and stand with others demanding action be taken to investigate the recorder’s records of homes in foreclosure, stop the foreclosure spiral happening in this community, and insist that the big bank/Wall Street CEOs be brought to court to answer for their crimes. 

The County Recorder is responsible for “holding” as a legal record, filings that pertain to any given property within their county.   As titles to properties chain, so should the records at the recorder’s office.

The MERS system was created by the Big Banks and Wall Street to undermine…

View original post 242 more words

The Murder of our Economy and Society by the Banks

31 Mar

Livinglies's Weblog

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & CommentaryCLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

When is Foreclosure Theft? When the Mortgage is Recorded at MERS

Author: L. Randall Wray

As I’ve said many times, whenever you criticize the banks you get pushback from their employees and lawyers handling their home thefts (whoops I meant “foreclosures”). About ten days ago I posted a brief update on the state of play, and received the usual comments. (Here:http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2012/02/22/yes-virginia-foreclosure-is-theft/#idc-container)

Indeed, they went beyond “usual” as one bank lawyer tried to defend home theft as a “victimless crime”: “As a lawyer who did foreclosure work for many years for both borrowers and lenders, I assure you that robosigning is a victimless technicality. In only a handful of exceptions is there a wrongful foreclosure in which the outcome would have changed had the technicality been corrected. I am astonished to see foreclosure characterized…

View original post 1,743 more words

Lying to God

31 Mar

Livinglies's Weblog

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & CommentaryCLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

PICO National Network diverts $34 million in deposits away from pretender lenders. 

 
Whether you are a person of faith or not, we are taught that lying is not a good thing.  Conceding something that isn’t true is the same thing as a lie.  
 
There are two articles below.  In the first article below the author is asking us to accept one concession after another, one lie after another.   He states that the “distressed property seizures were triggered by the 2008 financial crash”.   But this is a lie.  This financial crisis was triggered by those on Wall Street along with their co-conspirators the banks.  They are the ones that distressed the property.  
The author quotes some nameless analysts as his source.  So who are these nameless…

View original post 2,676 more words

Fighting Foreclosure: Where to Start

31 Mar

Livinglies's Weblog

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & CommentaryCLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

SERVICE 520-405-1688

EDITOR’S COMMENT:

Darrell Blomberg is a pro se litigant who hasn’t made a monthly payment in over 4 years.  He’s not in foreclosure, but it has not come easily.  As he says, he has, “studied his eyeballs out”.  Additionally he works very closely with many homeowners, attorneys and other skilled professionals.  We are fortunate to have him here in Phoenix Arizona and have often wished we could clone him so every city could have at least one of him.  He hosts weekly strategy meetings that we recommend highly to everyone.  (For details see the end of his article below).  

In the article below, Darrell succinctly, directly, and with humor outlines where to start should you decide to fight your foreclosure.  

So you want to fight your foreclosure?  Where should you start?

Start with what…

View original post 900 more words

Foreclosure Alternatives Explored

31 Mar

Livinglies's Weblog

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & CommentaryCLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

By William C. Veal, Esq.

vealbuzz@aol.com

As we see the progress, or lack thereof, of the investigation into the massive scan called Foreclosure in our country, we read many articles by various people regarding the current status of investigations and attempted solutions.  See the two articles below.

            One article, by Jessica Bye reports on two “whistle blowers” who state that BoA defrauded the Federal Housing Administration by inflating appraisals used for government-insured home loans.  In one of the lawsuits, it states, “In other words, BoA has had it both ways.  BoA has continued to maximize the value of its mortgage portfolio with anti-HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) modification practices and then make money by committing fraud on the homeowner”.  Obviously, lawsuits are brought by those who believe…

View original post 1,341 more words

Katherine Porter Appointed Overseer of California Settlement with Big Banks…Here We Go Again!

31 Mar

Foreclosure Nation

Kamala Harris, CA’s Attorney General,  announced today that Katherine Porter, a law professor of UC Irvine was appointed

to oversee the Big Banks follow through in the recent Settlement.

Don’t you just love late Friday news!

Porter, a UC Irvine law professor, is a former student of Elizabeth Warren, the onetime Harvard Law School professor who led a watchdog committee to oversee the 2008 banking bailout, helped conceive the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is now a candidate to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.  Well we all know that the Big Bank bailout didn’t help us much as it only kept the Big Banks around longer so they could come back and steal our homes to collect on foreclosure insurance policies that padded their pockets.  

The LA Times reports that Porter, a specialist in foreclosures and bankruptcy,  performed a study in 2007 that offered evidence of the types of mortgage servicing abuses and foreclosure…

View original post 184 more words

The 7 Trillion Dollar Elephant in The Room…Banks Can’t Legally Foreclose

31 Mar

Foreclosure Nation

Great article by L Randall Wray, Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The article was originally posted here

“If you recall the Michael Moore movie, Rep Kaptur stood on the steps and told homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes. She was right: the banksters have no legal claim on the homes they are foreclosing. Foreclosure is theft. Any bank that used MERS has no legal claim on property—there are 65 million such mortgages to which no bank has a legal claim to foreclose.

And, to be sure, even those mortgages that were not run through MERS are suspect if they are handled by any of the five biggest servicers. These servicers keep such shoddy records that they cannot be trusted to accurately credit payments. They’ve been adding on fees and penalties that were unwarranted since they…

View original post 512 more words

CBO Whistle Blower Speaks Out About Mortgage Fraud and the Government Cover-Up

31 Mar

Foreclosure Nation

CBO staffer Lan Pham was fired because she refused to help the Big Banks cover-up their and the government’s involvement in it. Original Article Here. 

Here are quotes from her story that can be accessed by the link above.

Following the Wall Street Journal story, “Congress’s Number Cruncher Comes under Fire,” I realized that the true nature of the issues would not come out. Therefore, I am making public the letter that I wrote to Senator Grassley (Feb. 23, 2011) regarding circumstances that led to my firing after 2.5 months by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), particularly my writing about mortgage fraud and its roots in mortgage securitization that CBO sought to deny was a problem.

For clarification, the WSJ did not give proper recognition to some individuals. My “supervisors” was Dr. Deborah Lucas, who was CBO chief economist and assistant director, and is currently tenured professor of…

View original post 1,459 more words

Ellen Brown, President of the Public Banking Institute, Has a Plan – A Mandelman Matters Podcast – Mandelman Matters

31 Mar

Ellen Brown, President of the Public Banking Institute, Has a Plan – A Mandelman Matters Podcast – Mandelman Matters.

IS the TRUSTEE a Common Agent for ALL Parties? “YES”, say the Experts at Northwest Trustee Services Inc. in Santa Ana, CA., Attny Kathy Shakibi

31 Mar

Foreclosure Nation

TRUSTEE’S INTENTIONAL  ACTS  to DEFRAUD Homeowners of  PROPERTY

Intentional negligence to inform (admit) to the beneficiary or servicer that they (trustee) has knowledge of a borrower with a pending lawsuit challenging who owns the home (mortgage/deed of trust) and whose lawsuit by a reasonable person would be deemed to possibly render the deed of trust VOID, gives the Trustee an EXCUSE for moving forward to a trustee sale. The trustee USES THE pathetic well worn-out excuse that: We didn’t have time to get permission from the beneficiary or servicer to stop the sale; we didn’t find out about the lawsuit in time to ADVISE the beneficiary/servicer; the beneficiary/servicer DID NOT GET BACK to us in TIMELY fashion ALLOWING us to STOP THE SALE.

It has become alarmingly clear, that no one (not courts, not government, and certainly not trustees who supposedly work for both borrower and lender) are MOTIVATED to…

View original post 470 more words

Economy Cannot Grow Fast Enough

31 Mar

Livinglies's Weblog

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & CommentaryCLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

Bernanke’s comments corroborate years of projections on this blog and by others including Johnson and Roubini.  We are kidding ourselves if we think that the economy is going to improve without addressing the housing problem.  In order to bring unemployment down to a level where the threat of financial chaos is truly diminished aggregate demand must increase significantly.  In our country aggregate demand is largely determined by consumer demand.  Consumer demand exists only where consumers have sufficient resources available to them to buy things.  

 At one time credit was relatively unimportant since median income for the middle class was sufficient to run a household on one income and still purchase the goods and services that the economy had to offer.  For the last 35 years median income has either been stagnant…

View original post 1,472 more words

GUEST POST: A Letter to President Obama, from James Deal, Attorney at Law – Mandelman Matters

31 Mar

GUEST POST: A Letter to President Obama, from James Deal, Attorney at Law – Mandelman Matters.

Robo-signers List

25 Mar

COMPLETE GUIDE TO ROBO-SIGNERS 

FOR NEWEST LIST OF ROBO-SIGNERS  SEE http://takeyourhomeback.com/?p=428

FORECLOSURE SELF-DEFENSE COMPLETE GUIDE TO ROBO-SIGNERS *

* IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM LOCATING THE NAME/INFO YOU WANT-SEND US AN EMAIL (AT BOTTOM OF ARTICLE) AND WE WILL ASSIST

What is a robo-signer?

Robo-signers are mortgage lending company employees who prepared and signed off on foreclosures without reviewing them, as the law requires. Jeffrey Stephan, the GMAC employee who was the first identified as a robo-signer, has acknowledged in sworn deposition that he prepared 400 such foreclosures a day. The discovery of robo-signers could simply be the tip of the iceberg. If so, more revelations could only increase the pressure on large banks. Their potential exposure to losses could skyrocket.

What’s the significance?

The “robo-signing of affidavits and Assignments of Mortgage and all other mortgage foreclosure documents served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful foreclosure. If it turns out that robo-signers did indeed sign off on loans without review, they committed fraud by claiming knowledge of a financial matter of which they had no personal knowledge. It could also mean that some people are wrongly being evicted from their houses.

From underwriting fraudulent mortgages; to shuffling it through the mortgage securitization chain without following proper legal procedures like the simple act of passing along paperwork; to concealing or doctoring basic facts when securitizing the mortgages and selling them to investors, large lenders and their partners on Wall Street could face hundreds of billions of dollars in losses by being forced to buy back faulty mortgages, some of which have already defaulted, from misled investors.

Investors bought mortgage-linked securities with the promise that the underlying mortgages conformed to basic underwriting standards, and that proper procedures were followed in the chain of securitization and a tax-exempt status. Steep losses on those investments and the discovery of potentially fraudulent activity are pushing investors to force banks to buy them back.

With all of the press robo-signing has gotten, it is a bit surprising that everyone is having such a hard time concluding whether these practices effect non-judicial foreclosures.
The topic has not gotten the treatment it deserves, I will try to help. The following are by no means a complete list, but are the most clear LEGAL reasons (setting aside pure moral questions and the U.S. Constitution) that the Robo-Signer Controversy will entitle hundreds of thousands of homeowners wrongfully foreclosed and evicted to sue in non-judicial foreclosure states.

Briefly, Robo Signers are illegal because fraud cannot be the basis of clear title, trustee’s deeds following Robo Signed sales are void as a matter of law, notarization is a recording requirement for many of the documents, which we also know was often botched, and most importantly because robo signed falsifications ARE meant for use in court, including unlawful detainers and bankruptcy matters.

Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction the law is well settled.

Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that purchaser acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.

It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.

Hence, if forged Robo Signed signatures are used to obtain the foreclosure, it CERTAINLY makes a difference in non-judicial foreclosure states as well as judicial states.

Any apparent sale based on Robo Signed documents is void – without any legal effect – like Monopoly Money.

In turn, the law requires that the beneficiary execute and notarize and record a substitution for a valid substitution of trustee to take effect. Thus, if the Assignment of Deed of Trust/ Mortgage is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the substitution of trustee is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the Notice of Default is Robo-Signed, the sale is void.

These documents are not recordable without good notarization.The reason these documents are notarized in the first place is because otherwise they will not be accepted by the County recorder. Moreover, a notary who helps commit real estate fraud is liable.

Once the document is recorded, however, it is entitled to a “presumption of validity”, which is what spurned the falsification trend in the first place. Therefore, the notarization of a false signature not only constitutes fraud, but is every bit intended as part of a larger conspiracy to commit fraud on the court.

The documents are intended for court proceedings. A necessary purpose for these documents, AFTER the non judicial foreclosure, is the eviction of the rightful owners afterward. While the foreclosures are non-judicial, evictions afterwards still are conducted in court, although the process moves quickly and is mostly a “rubber stamping” by skeptical judges. However, as demonstrated below, once these documents make it into court, the bank officers and lawyers become guilty of FELONIES:

The Doctrine of Unclean Hands provides: plaintiff’s misconduct in the matter before the court makes his hands “unclean” and he may not hold with them the pristine remedy of injunctive relief. The unclean hands rule requires that the Plaintiff not cheat, and behave fairly. The plaintiff must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he or she will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of the claim. Whether the doctrine applies is a question of fact.

Robo Signed Documents Are Intended for Use in Bankruptcy Court Matters. One majorly overlooked facet is the extremely active bankruptcy court proceedings, where, just as in judicial foreclosure states, the banks must prove “standing” to proceed with a foreclosure. If they are not signed by persons with the requisite knowledge, affidavits submitted in bankruptcy court proceedings such as objections to a plan and Relief from Stays are perjured. The documents in support are often falsified evidence. Conclusion

Verified eviction complaints, perjured motions for summary judgment, and all other eviction paperwork after robo signed non judicial foreclosures are illegal and void. The paperwork itself is void. The sale is void. But the only way to clean up the hundreds of thousands of effected titles is through litigation, because even now the banks will simply not do the right thing. And that’s why robo signers count in non-judicial foreclosure states. Victims of robosigners in may seek declaratory relief and damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees for Unfair Business practices, as well as claims for slander of title; abuse of process, civil theft, and variety of other civil remedies. 

Final words: the “Robo” actions are just the tip of the iceberg but the “Robo” actions allowed part of the iceberg to be seen.

For the complete Congressional Written Report go to : http://www.foreclosureself-defense.com/downloads/Congressional_Foreclosure_Report.pdf

Admission by Florida Law Group- http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/37452927-FDLG-Admits-to-Violation-of-Professional-Conduct-Code-Jeffrey-Stephan-Affidavits.pdf,

TOP INDICATORS/SIGNS YOU PROBABLY HAVE A FALSE DOCUMENTS AND A VICTIM OF FORECLOSURE FRAUD

  1. Any document signed by an officer of MERS. MERS states at www.mersinc.org that: Employees of the servicer will be certifying officers of MERS. This means they are authorized to sign any necessary documents as an officer of MERS. The certifying officer is granted this power by a corporate resolution from MERS. In other words, the same individual that signs the documents for the servicer will continue to sign the documents, but now as an officer of MERS.
  2. The signor of the document states that they are acting “solely as nominee” for some other party.
  3. The document was notarized in Dakota County, Minnesota
  4. The document was notarized in Hinnepin County, Minnesota
  5. The document was notarized in Duval County, Florida
  6. The document was notarized in Palm Beach County, Florida
  7.  The document was notarized in Pinellas County Florida
  8. The document was notarized in San Diego County, CA
  9.  The document was notarized in Fulton County, GA
  10.  The document was notarized in Polk County, IA
  11.  The document was notarized in Travis County, Texas
  12.  The document was notarized in Harris County, Texas
  13.  The document was notarized in Salt Lake County, Utah
  14. The document was execute the same day it was filed with the Court
  15. The party who signed the document executed it as “an authorized agent” for the servicer or the Plaintiff.
  16. The party who signed the document executed it as “an attorney in fact” for the servicer or the Plaintiff.
  17. The name of the signing party is stamped on the documents in block letters.
  18. The name of the servicer or Plaintiff is stamped on the document in block letters.
  19.  The document appears to be a standard form with “fill-in-the-blanks” for the names of the signors and entities.
  20.  The paragraph numbers are not consistent (for example the first page may end with paragraph 7 and the second page may start with paragraph 10)
  21.  The party who signed the document and the notary are the same person.
  22.  You cannot read the signature of the signor and the name is not printed out on the document. (some people refer to these a “squiggle marks”) The bottom line is you cannot decipher any name or word on the document.
  23.  The signature on the document consists of one loop in the shape of an “S” or something that looks like an “8”.
  24.  The date of the signature and the date of the notarization are not the same.
  25.  The same “officer” or Vice President” of a mortgage company or lender is also the “Vice President” or “officer” of many other entities or lenders in the chain of assignments or endorsements.
  26.  The same “officer” or “ Vice President” of a lender signing the documents is located in various cities throughout the United States.
  27.   The document includes numerous pre-stamped names and signatures.
  28.  The document includes a second page or last page notarization that does not conform in type font, style, format, texture, age, from the primary pages of the document.
  29.  Backdating effective dates on assignments.
  30.  Signatures of officers are dated years after an entity has been out of business, merged with another company or filed for bankruptcy.
  31.   The party who signed the document executed it as a representative of the servicer. 
  32.  The notary failed to attach a notarial seal. 
  33.  The notary failed to sign the notarization. 
  34.  The name of the party appearing before the notary is blank. 
  35.  The name of the party appearing before the notary is block stamped. 
  36.  The endorsement is not at the foot of the note, but on a separate page or allonge to the note. (if there is room at the foot of the note, the endorsement must appear there. An allonge may only be used if there is insufficient room at the foot of the note for the endorsement) 
  37.  The document purports to assign the mortgage or the deed of trust from the originator directly to the trust. 
  38.  The document that purports to assign the mortgage of deed of trust to the Trust is dated BEFORE the Trust was registered with the SEC.
  39.  The document that purports to assign the mortgage of deed of trust to the Trust was signed AFTER        the cut-off date for the transfer of all such to the  Trust pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
  40.  The origination date on the mortgage note is not within the origination and cut-off dates provided for by the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
  41.  The mortgage note is assigned rather than endorsed from Party “A” to Party “B” or from any party to another party or entity.
  42.  The mortgage note is endorsed from the originator to the securitized Trust.
  43.  The mortgage note is endorsed from the originator to the current mortgage servicer.
  44.  The mortgage note is endorsed from the originator to the depositor for the securitized trust.
  45.  The affidavit is a “Lost Note Affidavit” filed by the mortgage servicer.
  46.  The affidavit is a “Lost Note Affidavit” filed by the Trustee for the securitized Trust and claims they never received the original Note. ( You can only file a lost note affidavit under the UCC if you possessed the Note before it was lost)
  47.  The assignment of mortgage or deed of trust was filed or signed after the filing of the bankruptcy case.
  48. The assignment of mortgage or deed of trust was filed or signed after the foreclosure proceeding began/was filed.
  49.  The assignment of mortgage or deed of trust was filed or signed after the filing of the Motion for Relief from Stay in Bankruptcy Court.
  50.  The affidavit was signed by an employee  MR Default Servicers or has the MR Default Servicers information on the document as an identification number.
  51.  The affidavit was signed by an employee  Promiss Solutions or has the Promiss Solutions information on the document as an identification number.
  52.  The affidavit was signed by an employee  NDEx Technologies, LLC or has the NDEx  information on the document as an identification number.
  53.  The affidavit was signed by the same attorney that signed the foreclosure complaint.
  54. The affidavit was filed by an employee of the attorney that filed the foreclosure complaint.
  55.  The documents are clearly two photocopies of the same document with different information filled in regarding the names of the assignor and assignee.
  56. The Note is stamped with the following: “Certified True Copy”.
  57.  The signature of the Vice President states that they are a Vice President of Lehman Brother Holding Company, but the printed or stamped name on the document is Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB.
  58.  The document is signed by a “Bank Officer” without any designation of the office/position held.
  59.  The affidavit is signed by the “designated agent” of any entity or party.
  60.  The affidavit includes one or more bar codes. ( Similar to the bar codes you see on items at the grocery store, etc.)
  61.  Any document signed by an individual who states that they are the “legal coordinator” for any entity involved in the lawsuit or chain of custody.
  62.  The return address on the Assignment or affidavit is to a third party provider, such as Financial Dimensions, Inc, FANDO or FNFS.
  63.  The transferor and the transferee  have the exact same physical address including the same street and/or P.O. box numbers.
  64.  The document bears the image: “This is not a certified copy”
  65.  The document refers to a Power of Attorney, but no such document is attached or filed and recorded.

PLEASE NOTE: FOR YOUR CONVIENENCE  TO LOCATE A PERSON A “FIND” FEATURE HAS BEEN INSTALLED ON THIS SECTION.

INSTRUCTIONS: PRESS THE CONTROL KEY AND THE “F” KEY AT THE SAME TIME, A BOX WILL APPEAR, TYPE IN THE NAME OR PART OF THE NAME YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND THE SITE WILL TAKE YOU TO IT.

KNOWN ALLEGED ROBO-SIGNERS 

Cheryl Samons–  the person which may have been responsible for more Floridians losing their homes  than any other person in the state – Ms. Samons was in fact the Office Manager of the Law Offices of David J. Stern and supervised the other Robo-Signers. see full deposition at http://4closurefraud.org/2010/02/23/full-deposition-of-the-soon-to-be-infamous-cheryl-samons-re-deutsche-bank-national-trust-company-as-trustee-for-morgan-stanley-abs-capital-inc-plaintiff-vs-belourdes-pierre-50-2008-ca-028558-xx/ For different signatures see http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Samons_Cheryl.GIF, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Samons_Cheryl.1.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/BsIiyb-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/NY4Csi-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Snowbound.pdf,  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/foreclosure-robo-signers-appear-to-be-widespread-968114.html

Tammie Lou Kapusta – David J. Stern former employee- see Attorney General’s full deposition at http://www.scribd.com/doc/38890568/Full-Deposition-of-Tammie-Lou-Kapusta-Law-Office-of-David-J-Stern                                                                                                 http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/real-estate/foreclosure-robo-signers-appear-to-be-widespread-968114.html 

Beth Cerniemployee of David J. Stern- see full deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WM1_FULL-DEPOSITION-OF-LAW-OFFICES-OF-DAVID-J.-STERN-BETH-CERNI.pdf 

Mary R. Cordova– employee at David J. Stern. See Attorney General’s full depo of Sept 23, 2010 at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Copy-of-WM-FULL-DEPOSITION-TRANSCRIPT-OF-MARY-CARDOVA-OF-LAW-OFFICES-OF-DAVID-J.-STERN.pdf 

Kelly Scott– employee at David J. Stern, P.A. , legal assistant to Cheryl Samons. See Attorney General’s full deposition of October 4, 2010 at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WM_FULL-DEPOSITION-TRANSCRIPT-OF-KELLY-SCOTT-OF-LAW-OFFICES-OF-DAVID-J.-STERN.pdf 

Shannon Smith– employee of David J. Stern, P.A. Illegally claimed she is a paralegal, lacks any credentials and not certified, false notarization. See full depo at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FULL-DEPOSITION-OF-DAVID-J.-STERNS-SHANNON-SMITH.pdf 

Kathy Smith–   Employee at Lender Processing Services see more info at http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/robosigners-michelle-halyard , and signature and false credentials at http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Smith_Kathy.2.pdf http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kaminski_Joseph.6.pdf , http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Corrective+Assignment%5b2%5d.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Gx12P0-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Linda%20Green%20no%20authority%20to%20sign%20on%20behalf%20of%20MERS%20Sept%202009.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Sanisidro%20Garcia%20Aff%20Lost%20Note%20by%20Kathy%20Smith.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Linda%20Green%20no%20authority%20to%20sign%20on%20behalf%20of%20MERS%20Sept%202009.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Corrective+Assignment%5b2%5d.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_42_4247609_img.pdf.pdf,

Joseph Kaminski– Employee at Lender Processing Services, see signature and false credentials at http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Smith_Kathy.2.pdf  , http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kaminski_Joseph.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kaminski_Joseph.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kaminski_Joseph.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kaminski_Joseph.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kaminski_Joseph.6.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Corrective+Assignment%5b2%5d.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Gx12P0-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Linda%20Green%20no%20authority%20to%20sign%20on%20behalf%20of%20MERS%20Sept%202009.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Corrective+Assignment%5b2%5d.pdf,  

Michelle Hayard– see more info at http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/robosigners-michelle-halyard 

Caryn Graham– Sr. Attorney at Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson. See http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/caryn-a-graham-%E2%80%93-mers-assistant-secretary-bofa-countrywide-wells-fargo/,   http://my.firedoglake.com/cindykouril/2010/04/19/the-story-of-the-law-firm-that-built-its-own-evidence-for-foreclosures/                              http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/caryn-graham-attorney-at-thehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34557527/Caryn-Graham-attorney-at-the-Law-Office-of-Marshall-Watson-signing-for-MERS, http://www.scribd.com/doc/34557449/Caryn-Graham-attorney-at-the-Law-Office-Of-Marshall-Watson-signing-for-MERS-on-assignment-of-mortgage, http://api.ning.com/files/6MrupP07zeOCtzJg1hjlQO0cgPH7AuDLhu4YlaW6JY3dPdA*I0L*wavvUccY*IDQ01m78tWzagio6ve-ulgmZgNmdvgNFF7I/Grahamv2.pdf, http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/protecting-caryn-graham-and-oh,  

Patricia Arango– employee/attorney of Marshall C. Watson, see-  http://4closurefraud.org/2011/01/12/bam-full-deposition-of-patricia-arango-of-marshall-c-watson-arangos-testimony-contradicts-congressional-testimony-of-merscorp-president/ http://my.firedoglake.com/cindykouril/2010/04/19/the-story-of-the-law-firm-that-built-its-own-evidence-for-foreclosures/

C.Troy Crouse a.k.a. Charles Troy Crouse– attorney at McCalla Raymerhttp://www.mccallaraymer.com/index.php?searchword=crouse&ordering=&searchphrase=all&Itemid=73&option=com_search http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25635807/detail.html  http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf  http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Prommis+Solutions%2C+LLC&circuit=11

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/11/05/georgias-version-of-david-stern-and-friends-mccalla-raymer-charles-troy-crouse-and-prommis-solutions/ http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction  http://www.lawyers.com/Georgia/Atlanta/McCalla-Raymer,-LLC-885136-f.html http://www.mccallaraymer.com/

Crystal Wilder– notary- employee at McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction  http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf  http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Prommis+Solutions%2C+LLC&circuit=11

Chiquita Raglin– Notary Public and as an employee of McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf  http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Prommis+Solutions%2C+LLC&circuit=11  

Victoria Marie Allen– Notary Public and as an employee of McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf  

Iris Gisella Bey–  Notary Public and as an employee of McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf

Jamelia Reynolds, Notary Public and as an employee of McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf

Latasha Daniel, Notary Public and as an employee of McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf  

Elizabeth Lofaronotary- employee at McCalla Raymer- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction  http://www.operationrest.org/xSites/Agents/OperationRestorationInc/Content/UploadedFiles/ClassActionLawSuit.pdf

Carla Tinoco– employee of Ocwen- false notary- http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/juan-pardo-mersocwen-cross-employment/  

Rhonda Weston– one of 10,000 listed Vice Presidents for Bank of America. see affidavit on Exhibit “B” at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/10/24/ohio-woman-sues-bank-of-america-robo-signer-fannie-mae-ag-cordray/,     http://www.msfraud.org/fraudsterlist.html 

 Dhurata Doko–  employee of Nationwide Title Clearing–see video deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/07/video-deposition-of-nationwide-title-clearing-dhurata-doko/ 

different signatures, see http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.pdf. http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.4.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.5.pdf,  

Roderick Sedahttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick_1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.3.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.4.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.5.pdf,

Erica Johnson-Seck a/k/a Erica A. Johnson-Seck – see full deposition at http://4closurefraud.org/2009/11/15/full-deposition-of-the-infamous-erica-johnson-seck-re-indymac-federal-bank-fsb-plaintiff-vs-israel-a-machado-50-2008-ca-037322xxxx-mb/  IndyMac Bank (years after IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ceased to exist, many of the signers will sign as officers of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the entity that should have made the assignment to the trust years earlier)

Bryan Bly-employee at Nationwide Title Clearing. See video deposition at  http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/07/video-deposition-of-nationwide-title-clearing-bryan-bly/

Hollan M. Fintel– Attorney for Florida Default Group and Shapiro & Fishman, utilizing false credentials, robo-signing, and supervising robo-signing, See full deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WB1_FULL_DEPOSITION_-of_HOLLAN-FINTEL_-former-associate-attorney-of-Florida-Default-Law-Group.-Executed-assignment-of-mortgage-as-vice-president-of-Wells-Fargo-Bank-N.A..pdf 

Erin Cullaro– former attorney for Florida Default GroupEmployee of Florida’s Attorney General’s Office while notarizing  and filing false affidavits for former employer during A.G. investigation.  See http://www.zerohedge.com/article/florida-notary-fraud-erin-cullaro-%E2%80%93-scandalous-%E2%80%93-substantiated-allegations-foreclosure-fraud  http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/01/bz-state-ag-investigates-its-own/, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Cullaro_Erin.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Cullaro_Erin.1.JPG, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Cullaro_Erin.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Cullaro_Erin.6.pdf,  http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/03/bombshell-substantiated-allegations-of-foreclosureaffidavit-fraud-that-implicates-the-florida-attorney-generals-office/, ,

See multiple signatures for Erin Cullaro:  http://4closurefraud.org/2010/10/21/bout-time-ags-office-reprimands-erin-cullaro-for-foreclosure-mill-work/, http://www.woodwardlaw.com/foreclosure-news/erincollinscullarocaughtlyingtothecourtagainhttp://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7P5HJP/$file/AttorneyDebtServicesAVC.pdfhttp://www.mediation-drz.com/FORECLOSURE_PROCESS.html,

Tamara Savery– Wells Fargo/ASC employee. See full depo at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WM_FULL-DEPOSITION-TRANSCRIPT-OF-WELLS-FARGO-TAMARA-SAVERY.pdf 

Angela Nolan– V.P. with Chase. See full depo at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Deposition_of_Angela_Nolan.pdf http://www.scribd.com/doc/27975756/Full-Deposition-of-Angela-Nolan-Robo-Signer-at-Chase-Home-Finance-DeUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY 

Beth Cottrell– Employee of Lenders Processing Services, claims is an employee of Chase, robo-signer, signed false affidavits, never had personal knowledge of contents. See full depo of May 18, 2010 at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/BETH-COTTRELL-CHASE-HOME-FINANCE.pdf

 http://api.ning.com/files/4jnqlbCXwfs3Z3-ENgcbtAI8PtVjEEe18j-hetj0ZLHpOAhU*wooq8prvl7jmLs7P8e21Ao4FVmONCwYSba49IFrvpTt9701/CookandCottrellUSBankNAatFLehman7109.pdf 

Jeffrey Stephan– One of the largest robo-signers in the country, approx. 400 per week. See depo at  http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Deposition_of_Jeffrey_Stephan.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stephan_Jeffrey.BMP,

Krystal Hall– robo signer, see full deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DEPOSITION_OF_KRYSTAL-HALL.pdf 

Stacy Spohn– Employee of Lenders Processing Services. See http://4closurefraud.org/2010/09/29/can-it-be-true-fraud-digest-mortgage-fraud-jpmorgan-chase-barbara-hindman-et-al/#comments 

Crystal Moore–  employee at Nationwide Title Clearing. See signatures at http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.3.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.4.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Doko_Dhurata.5.pdf,  See video deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/07/sff-exclusive-video-deposition-of-nationwide-title-crystal-moore/ 

http://search.wn.com/?template=cheetah-search-adv/index.txt&action=search&results_type=news&search_string=crystal moore robosigner deposition on mortgage fraud of 4mp4&language_id=1&sort_type=-pub-datetime&corpus=current&search_type=expression 

Margaret Dalton– Employee of Lenders Processing Services. See http://4closurefraud.org/2010/09/29/can-it-be-true-fraud-digest-mortgage-fraud-jpmorgan-chase-barbara-hindman-et-al/#comments,  http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/  

SIGNED AFFIDAVIT BY AN EXPERT http://whatsignature.com/files/Affidavit_of_Robo-Signer_Margaret_Dalton.pdf

Christina Allen– see http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/

 Alfonzo Greene– see http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/

Laura Hescott– See http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hescott_Laura.pdf, and http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/03/12/topako-love-laura-hescott-christina-allen-eric-tate-officers-of-way-way-too-many-banks-part-deux-the-twilight-zone/ 

Bethany Hood– see http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hood_Bethany.GIF, http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/ http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo  

Barbara Hindman– Too many jobs at the same time http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.1.JPG, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.4.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.5.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.6.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.8.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.9.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.10.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.11.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.12.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.13.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.16.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Hindman_Barbara.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thievin_Shelley.JPG, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thievin_Shelley.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick_1.pdf http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Seda_Roderick.3.pdf, http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/,  

http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/YEHiDw-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/AssignmentofMortgage.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/MTF5p2-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/MTF5p2-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nl6WZo-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/K8LQQ4-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/YEHiDw-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/AssignmentofMortgage.pdf.pdf

Shelley Thievenhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thievin_Shelley.JPG, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thievin_Shelley.1.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thievin_Shelley.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thieven_Shelley.7.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/AssignmentofMortgage.pdf.pdf,

Zuhra Huftio–  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huftio_Zuhra.JPGhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huftio_Zuhra.1.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huftio_Zuhra.2.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huftio_Zuhra.3.pdf,

Linda Green– employee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia, see different signature at http://www.frauddigest.com/TOO_MANY_JOBS.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.1.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.2.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.4.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.3.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.1.pdf,   http://www.myprivateaudio.com/11_Trust_Assignment_Fraud_Letter_to_SEC.doc , http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Cf2fyq-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/JkM4KF-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Linda%20Green%20no%20authority%20to%20sign%20on%20behalf%20of%20MERS%20Sept%202009.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/QHOlVR-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Registry%20of%20Deeds.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Untitled.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/VErRd8-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/green%20titles.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/l%20green.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Registry%20of%20Deeds.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Untitled.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_590_16232253_img.pdf, http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/?p=10012 http://api.ning.com/files/aqSARSiTkefAl9393gVzsI3f4SH1*K1goYHMlptGDfY6PAwGI82Ew0u8u0YJVF82HF8Gbyo90CbsDap8NovcnUFMr36wxshl/JessicaOhdesignaturesamples.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/znwiYjn7FBGiR1q-G6aV1ttAWTjihjjK9WabIYLkCOgT4Hr7uzRUybEIxH6Grn-fe8TaUVTcQwhP1Zp-Xh8F0buIGRwrE3m5/LindaGreen5signaturesamples.pdf  – 5 different signatures

NO AUTHORITY: http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Linda%20Green%20no%20authority%20to%20sign%20on%20behalf%20of%20MERS%20Sept%202009.pdf. http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Corrective+Assignment%5b2%5d.pdf,

Karrel Harp–  employee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia http://www.frauddigest.com/TOO_MANY_JOBS.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.3.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.4.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.1.pdf,  http://www.myprivateaudio.com/11_Trust_Assignment_Fraud_Letter_to_SEC.doc , ,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/FCOT4y-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/JkM4KF-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/QHOlVR-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/RQndQL-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/VErRd8-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/W6XJgC-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/green%20titles.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/t%20thomas.pdf, http://api.ning.com/files/aqSARSiTkefAl9393gVzsI3f4SH1*K1goYHMlptGDfY6PAwGI82Ew0u8u0YJVF82HF8Gbyo90CbsDap8NovcnUFMr36wxshl/JessicaOhdesignaturesamples.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/wcUUmX7oCvO2NtBWk4POMcHmea0acZWXrXKaYOW0K0h-mufX1-k3mk1GX*WGvcLM9frbdOD8LioPGYOg6gu1-yL82y-WI4S3/KorellHarpSignatureSamples.pdf

Jessica Ohde– employee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/VErRd8-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://api.ning.com/files/aqSARSiTkefAl9393gVzsI3f4SH1*K1goYHMlptGDfY6PAwGI82Ew0u8u0YJVF82HF8Gbyo90CbsDap8NovcnUFMr36wxshl/JessicaOhdesignaturesamples.pdf  – 5different signatures http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/

 

Tawanna Thomasemployee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia , see different signatures at http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.2.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thomas_Tywanna.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.pdf,  http://www.myprivateaudio.com/11_Trust_Assignment_Fraud_Letter_to_SEC.doc , http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/t%20thomas.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/l%20green.pdf,  http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/?p=10012  http://api.ning.com/files/znwiYjn7FBGiR1q-G6aV1ttAWTjihjjK9WabIYLkCOgT4Hr7uzRUybEIxH6Grn-fe8TaUVTcQwhP1Zp-Xh8F0buIGRwrE3m5/LindaGreen5signaturesamples.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/aqSARSiTkee3tbDeMIFoHE4wu1iHuumF-uiTADvL*knBNwLuoZg8h*a5CYRPbQbQtPiu2qQOgXIx58z8lsR3FMFtVwNko7hy/TywannaThomassignaturesamples.pdf  http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/  

Tawanna Thomas – TOO MANY JOBS http://www.frauddigest.com/TOO_MANY_JOBS.pdf,   http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Cf2fyq-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/FCOT4y-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/JkM4KF-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/QHOlVR-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/RQndQL-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/W6XJgC-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/green%20titles.pdf,  http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/?p=10012  http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/

Jessica Leeteemployee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia. See http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Untitled.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_590_16232253_img.pdf,  

Shelley Scheffey– see http://www.frauddigest.com/TOO_MANY_JOBS.pdf,

Linda Thorsen–  employee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Green_Linda.4.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Thoresen_Linda.1.pdf,

Christina Huang–  employee of Lenders Processing Services, Fulton County Georgia http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huang_Christina.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huang_Christina.1.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huang_Christina.2.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Huang_Christina.3.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/Cf2fyq-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdfhttp://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/FCOT4y-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/JkM4KF-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/RQndQL-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/W6XJgC-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/green%20titles.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/t%20thomas.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/l%20green.pdf,

Dawn Williams– employee of Lenders Processing Services, Fulton County, Georgia http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/l%20green.pdf,

Cecelia Knox–  SEE http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/  http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/

 Topako Love– See http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/03/12/topako-love-laura-hescott-christina-allen-eric-tate-officers-of-way-way-too-many-banks-part-deux-the-twilight-zone/, http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/                              http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/                                                                        http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html 

Christine Allen– See http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/                http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/03/12/topako-love-laura-hescott-christina-allen-eric-tate-officers-of-way-way-too-many-banks-part-deux-the-twilight-zone/ http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Jodi Sobotta,- see http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/

Eric Tate– See http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/03/12/topako-love-laura-hescott-christina-allen-eric-tate-officers-of-way-way-too-many-banks-part-deux-the-twilight-zone/, http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/,  

Herman John Kennerty – employee of Wells Fargo Bank. False affidavits, see deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Full-Deposition-of-Wells_Fargo_John-Herman-Kennerty.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kennerty_Herman_John.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kennerty_Herman_John.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kennerty_Herman_John.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kennerty_John.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Kennerty_John.1.pdf, http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/caryn-a-graham-%E2%80%93-mers-assistant-secretary-bofa-countrywide-wells-fargo/                                                 http://www.dsnews.com/articles/jpmorgan-halts-foreclosures-robo-signers-appear-commonplace-2010-09-30 http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

Judy Faber–  see full deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WM_FULL_DEPOSITION_OF_RESIDENTIAL-FUNDING.GMAC_JUDY_FABER.pdf

Renee D. Hertzler– employee of Bank of America. See full deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WM_FULL_DEPOSITION_TRANSCRIPT_OF_BANK_OF_AMERICA_RENEE_D_HERTZLER.pdf

Robert R. Stoudmire– see signature and false credentials at http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stoudemire_Robert.pdf

Roger Stotts– different signatures and credentials see  at http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stotts_Roger.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stotts_Roger.1.GIF, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stotts_Roger.3.JPG,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stotts_Roger.4.JPG, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stotts_Roger_D.GIF, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Stotts_Roger_D.1.GIF

Tamara Price– see full deposition at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WM_FULL-DEPOSITION-OF-CITI-RESIDENTIAL-AMC-TAMARA-PRICE.pdf http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

R.K. Arnold– former  CEO of MERSCORP and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Depo taken at the American Association for Justice, Washington, D.C. on September 25, 2009. See http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/MERS-DEPO-OF-CEO-RK-Arnold-2009.pdf

Margaret Dalton– Expert Affidavit by an Attorney, see http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Affidavit_of_Robo-Signer_Margaret_Dalton.pdf,  http://www.frauddigest.com/fraud.php?ident=4663 , http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/YEHiDw-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/forclosure%20deed.pdf.pdf,  

Liquenda Allotey– employee of Lenders Processing Services, Dakota County, MN signing as V.P. of MERS-  unreadable signature http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Unknown_MERS_-_First_Financail_Equities.GIF, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.2.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg.4.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.4.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.5.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.6.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.7.pdf,

William Hultman–  actual MERS  executive– see full depo at http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/MERS%20VP%20William%20Hultman%20Deposition%20NJ.pdf,

Greg Allenhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg2.1.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg2.2.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg.3.pdf, http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg.4.pdfhttp://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allen_Greg.5.pdf,  http://www.whatsignature.com/files/Allotey_Liquenda.5.pdf,

Tam Doanhttp://money.cnn.com/2010/10/28/real_estate/robosigner/index.htm, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/tam-doan-robosigner-bank-of-america_n_775225.htmlhttp://realestate.about.com/b/2010/10/28/tam-doan-i-was-a-bank-of-america-robosigner-oct-28-2010.htm,

Stanley Silvadeposition http://4closurefraud.org/2011/01/21/more-wells-fargo-woes-full-deposition-of-stanley-silva-notice-of-default-robo-signer/#comment-18380

Nate Blackstun– – employee of CitiBank – http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/07/the-new-foreclosure-fraud-battleground-fraud-and-motions-to-disqualify-counsel/

Jamie Hardcastle– employee of CitiBank – http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/07/the-new-foreclosure-fraud-battleground-fraud-and-motions-to-disqualify-counsel/

Steven Nagyhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/20887303/New-Century-Mortgage-Forgeries-Notarized-Illegal-Stamped-Signatures-Newsletter-Nagy  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/0LNWLQ-ShowPDF.aspx.pdf.pdf http://4closurefraud.org/2011/01/09/fraudclosuregate-grandma-in-california-does-some-sleuthing-and-uncovers-major-robo-notary-violations/

NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING COMPANY – FULL DEPOSITION http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

TICOR TITLE – FULL DEPOSITION http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

 

JUDGE SCHACK’S ( NY )FAVORITE ROBO-SIGNERS

Rosa C. Larahttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Tamara Pricehttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Christopher M. Zeishttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

John Shelleyhttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Ely Harlesshttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Jeff Rivashttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Cathy Menchisehttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Bryan Kusichhttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Margery Rotundohttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Jessica Dybashttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Albert Fiorellohttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Victor F. Parisihttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Leo Ortega, Jr.- http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Keri Selmanhttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

Joe Lanninghttp://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/

ROBO SIGNERS BY LOCATION AND/OR  COMPANY

Bank of America’s Robo-Signer Listhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/40927249/Bank-Of-America-Robo-signer-List

Tom Croft-employee of  Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC – Orange County CA.

G. Soberanis– employee of  Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC  and signer for Deutsche Bank– Orange County CA

Rachel Warmack– employee of  Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC – signing as VP of Option One Mortgage Corporation, Orange County, CA

Gino Tomasino – signing as Assistant Secretary of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Orange County, CA

Smith, Hiatt & Diaz –  Broward County, Florida http://whatsignature.com/files/Smith_Hiatt_Diaz_P.A._-_unknown_signature.JPG

Valerie Broom– employee of  Lender Processing Services, Duval County, Florida

Margaret Dalton- employee of  Lender Processing Services, Duval County, Florida

Michele Halyard- employee of  Lender Processing Services, Duval County, Florida

Michael Hunt- employee of  Lender Processing Services, Duval County, Florida

Joseph Kaminsky- employee of  Lender Processing Services, Duval County, Florida

Coleman Stokes – employee of  Lender Processing Services, Duval County, Florida

Tara Stabile– employee of Shapiro & Fishman, LLP signing as Vice President and Asst. Secretary of MERS for America’s Wholesale Lender, Hillsborough County, Florida

Scott Anderson– employee of  Ocwen Loan Servicing Palm Beach County, Florida http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_978_16592874_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_363_16824558_img.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_625_17027721_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_646_17433704_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_52_17505354_img.pdf.pdf,

Oscar Taveras– employee of  Ocwen Loan Servicing Palm Beach County, Florida, http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_52_17505354_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_646_17433704_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_52_17505354_img.pdf.pdf,

Doris Chapman– employee of  Ocwen Loan Servicing Palm Beach County, Florida, http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_52_17505354_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_52_17505354_img.pdf.pdf,

Leticia Ariasemployee of  Ocwen Loan Servicing Palm Beach County, Florida, http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html  http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_978_16592874_img.pdf.pdf, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_363_16824558_img.pdf,

Dana Moore– employee of Owen Laon Servicing, Palm Beach, County, Florida, http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/nv_978_16592874_img.pdf.pdf,

Jonathan Burgess– employee of  Ocwen Loan Servicing Palm Beach County, Florida http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Laura Buxton– employee of  Ocwen Loan Servicing Palm Beach County, Florida http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Rebecca Winner– employee at Shapiro & Fishman, LP, Palm Beach County, Florida http://whatsignature.com/files/Shapiro_Fishman_LLP.1.GIF http://whatsignature.com/files/Shapiro_Fishman_LLP.GIF

Bryan Bly– employee of  Nationwide Title Clearing,  Pinellas County Florida http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Vilma Castro– employee of  Nationwide Title Clearing,  Pinellas County Florida http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Mary Jo McGowan – employee of  Nationwide Title Clearing,  Pinellas County Florida, signing as Asst V.P. Washington Mutual Bank

Dhurato Doko– employee of  Nationwide Title Clearing,  Pinellas County Florida, more above  http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Jessica Fretwell– employee of  Nationwide Title Clearing,  Pinellas County Florida and others http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Cheryl Thomas– employee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia,

Christie Baldwin– employee of Lenders Processing, Fulton County Georgia

Darin Bueltelsigning as V.P. Wells Fargo Financial, Polk County, IA

Kevin Butterweggesigning as V.P. Wells Fargo Financial, Polk County, IA 

Topeka Love– employee of Lenders Processing Services, Dakota County, MN

Christine Anderson- employee of Lenders Processing Services, Dakota County, MN

Dory or Dorey Goebel – employee of Lenders Processing Services, signing as Asst. Secretary of Option One Mortgage, Dakota County, MN

Christine Allen- employee of Lenders Processing Services, Dakota County, MN

Mark Bischop-  is a FIS Foreclosure Solutions notary from Dakota County, MN.

Eric Tate- employee of Lenders Processing Services, Dakota County, MN

Michael Ackerman– attorney at Zucker, Goldberg and Ackerman, NJ

Christina Trowbridge– employee of Chase Home Finance, Franklin County, OH, http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/09/29/here-comes-jpmorgan-chase-lender-processing-services-and-its-robo-signers/ http://api.ning.com/files/tlbopfq3IZ0rstKpWUwhKXuuhfsfFdGnDCFaVjhwU3zbo1YTXQHRy8OczkZTiaqKRsnKVwKz4vaDqg6H1IIk-2DS1sQryfJW/TowbridgeandCookChaseBankUSA6809.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/wwpdBrEz4Fz-ltD8ICz0te23fyFAAGjKHhznRJQEvlZXVqIAZoaEIGle2NJI7vHqmdid7QnQRFOmmRNiiT7RHzomi7tJV7tr/TowbridgeandCookJPMorganChaseBank122008.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/i0L51jUXROyI7sEHaUnVJtPbmqwdSlsf*XSl1ERD2xNKyqL9pmmYfqXKxJdvfwUB8iMy4HLlR-WsO3JtdNSu7pyfcdQvHwJI/TowbridgeandCookMERS52109.pdf

Whitney Cook– employee of Chase Home Finance, Franklin County, OH http://api.ning.com/files/gDnjnrj7Oj3riU2vVL9qsIcGIPTDad8znRRP*ea0YuASQtrKdQyOGeislELEw5Ix5JRpbYlqcPEuFHtqok4oY4YfkDEPFNuU/CookADO2.pdf http://api.ning.com/files/V33VP3LtT7615dwidPPUxlEKbZj-YQSviH8ywJqApvfZpFXgx9zVrJuuuWP-21L1*C*MPu56UbTvw7rr5VNe6gRbluekNIEa/CookCitibankEMC1_0003.pdf http://api.ning.com/files/4jnqlbCXwfs3Z3-ENgcbtAI8PtVjEEe18j-hetj0ZLHpOAhU*wooq8prvl7jmLs7P8e21Ao4FVmONCwYSba49IFrvpTt9701/CookandCottrellUSBankNAatFLehman7109.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/qwWP9H3ypGk*9U3tdBjULSquKCZaoH3hzp4GvpzbMFdYMAEHq7zsswHu5IkVQf02Q6t2q0LeZT-Qjs-spA9ZgTQXPBLjHE-N/CookandTowbridgeJPMorganChase52109.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/wwpdBrEz4Fz-ltD8ICz0te23fyFAAGjKHhznRJQEvlZXVqIAZoaEIGle2NJI7vHqmdid7QnQRFOmmRNiiT7RHzomi7tJV7tr/TowbridgeandCookJPMorganChaseBank122008.pdf http://api.ning.com/files/V33VP3LtT74vil7ye2kM4fb2kCnMyuszQ*YFk2W*lfMo6wy2qraegqrVisqOC6bqgI9w9ypw5kpFoO5pfuR5EuATeQiP-Jty/CookChaseBankNA12262008.pdf http://api.ning.com/files/gDnjnrj7Oj2sd8XrmTJLhSU8a-Xxp6wUDZGhZgvoEDmTIWXApXesiwh9X1n6d5VZlRlo1N8Qqxdc-v11R*QdGgr1N6O40MsA/CookChaseBankUSA82808.pdf http://api.ning.com/files/X1iGwvmnVRnZilM1l5ptzXKUJiG-*7K*aSyaTasWFKAR22*pr0iDks5vDLsCCB8RfW7I4qv57pSOze06AMOZfJ0hxm8TXwFR/CookChaseHomeFinance22509.pdf http://api.ning.com/files/HYdFdD9AInlkIIyoxOmR5Cb54FLjpkrPE-1FZKvc7V8lld59iIwVLaSZb-Qm17VrZs5py6XUteMlsUR-FZKYtIYiH8kGdLtV/CookMERS4909.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/tlbopfq3IZ0rstKpWUwhKXuuhfsfFdGnDCFaVjhwU3zbo1YTXQHRy8OczkZTiaqKRsnKVwKz4vaDqg6H1IIk-2DS1sQryfJW/TowbridgeandCookChaseBankUSA6809.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/i0L51jUXROyI7sEHaUnVJtPbmqwdSlsf*XSl1ERD2xNKyqL9pmmYfqXKxJdvfwUB8iMy4HLlR-WsO3JtdNSu7pyfcdQvHwJI/TowbridgeandCookMERS52109.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/qwWP9H3ypGnbgiBwiJxGflMKRoYt7Ij*LAZ71D*LO8UDNshAyR-ESB2r7XsETxGyDKCTVm3Ph9kTg3dS4oUOVDswPzN-jOSG/WhitneyKCookMERSAmnet2009MWAsg.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/HYdFdD9AInnaws6IJl6aLRPpbREuttbV2el5CAg5SZ-r3-H1Ud2QUSC2xo1zSxmAaV7JZgINGve3lPh*yenlAR3hA2fgq3Hn/2009.12.22PLWhitneyKCookResptoDFsInterr.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/Xt0W0vH8Dd6JTnuTtSHrH*Zw-ibhKCrFaaYetgNCSxa9erbDwER-Qj8jwqT3zPYj5*dw5pFcs8cjeGSf1mbo2bZJenG5cADk/CookVerification0603.pdf  http://api.ning.com/files/RDFm1oi-lqT4WIIV9acxA4SgAuHsyeUvmCH78T1-6t7habrP*NEKKJD3ID5A1MTWrwwRxsamKRVX80k01NMQLQuO3Vn-EXp4/WhitneyKCookAllonge.pdf

Kevin Prieshoff- signing as Asst. Secretary & V.P. of MERS, Hamilton County, OH

Laura Carroll– Foreclosure Specialist for Home Loan Services, Allegheny County, PA

John Kerr– GMAC / Homecomings, Montgomery County, PA http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

China Brown– employee of  America’s Servicing Company, York County, SC http://www.frauddigest.com/fraud.php?ident=4670  http://whatcomforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/wells-fargo-and-its-robo-signers-must.html http://wfhmcaught.blogspot.com/2010/10/oh-good-grief-wells-fargo-will-you.html http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/                                                          http://www.dsnews.com/articles/jpmorgan-halts-foreclosures-robo-signers-appear-commonplace-2010-09-30                                                  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/wells-fargo-foreclosure-robo-signer-draws-maryland-dismissal-motion.html                                  http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/11/16/mind-blowing-judge-schack-names-robo-signers-in-many-foreclosure-cases-greatest-hits/ http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

Xee Moua– employee of  America’s Servicing Company, York County, SC http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/wells-fargo-foreclosure-robo-signer-draws-maryland-dismissal-motion.html  http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

Noriko Colstonhttp://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

Natasha Clark – Employee of America’s Servicing Company, York County, SC- signing as V.P. Washington Mutual Bank                                           http://whatcomforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/wells-fargo-and-its-robo-signers-must.html http://www.veritasaudits.com/blog/tag/intentional-misrepresentation/ http://wfhmcaught.blogspot.com/2010/10/oh-good-grief-wells-fargo-will-you.html

Heather Carrico- employee of America’s Servicing Company, York County, SC http://whatcomforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/wells-fargo-and-its-robo-signers-must.html http://wfhmcaught.blogspot.com/2010/10/oh-good-grief-wells-fargo-will-you.html

Micall Bachman a.k.a. Michelle Bachman– signing as V.P. of Argent Mortgage, Collin County, TX- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/robo-signers-threaten-foreclosure-lawyers_n_795291.html                                                              http://www.scribd.com/doc/40927249/Bank-Of-America-Robo-signer-List http://washingtonexaminer.com/nep/2010/11/robo-signing-mers-issues-create-new-concerns-foreclosure-buyers

Marti Noriega- employee of  Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Harris County, TX- http://whatsignature.com/files/Unknown_-_from_South_Carolina.pdf  http://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924

Denise Bailey– employee of  Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Harris County, TX http://www.housingwire.com/2010/11/12/florida-court-robo-signing-not-sufficient-to-stop-foreclosure                                                                      http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html                                                    http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/

Diane Dixon– employee of  Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Harris County, TX- http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-dirty-dozen-banks-most-responsible-for-foreclosure-fraud/

D.M. Wileman– signing as VP of MERS, Tarrant County, TX

Brian Burnett– employee of  IndyMac Bank Home Loan Servicing, Travis County, TX- http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Kristen Kemp– employee of  IndyMac Bank Home Loan Servicing, Travis County, TX http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Suchan Murray – employee of  IndyMac Bank Home Loan Servicing, Travis County, TX http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Chamagne Williams– employee of  IndyMac Bank Home Loan Servicing, Travis County, TX http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Dennis Kirkpatick– employee of  IndyMac Bank,  Williamson County, TX (years after IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ceased to exist, many of the signers will sign as officers of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the entity that should have made the assignment to the trust years earlier) http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Eric Friedman- IndyMac Bank (years after IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ceased to exist, many of the signers will sign as officers of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the entity that should have made the assignment to the trust years earlier)                           http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Luisa Alfonso– employee of Select Portfolio Servicing, Salt Lake County, UT http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Bill Koch- employee of Select Portfolio Servicing, Salt Lake County, UT http://pippinghole.blogspot.com/2010/12/robo-signers-signors-names-revealed.html

Pam January- signer for CR Title and CitiMortgage              http://www.loansafe.org/forum/citi-mortgage/36803-mers-robo-citimortgage-sold-loan-pennymac-aug-2010-a.html

Lisa Markham– signer for CR Title, CitiMortgage and Deutsche Bank http://www.loansafe.org/forum/citi-mortgage/36803-mers-robo-citimortgage-sold-loan-pennymac-aug-2010-a.html

Tam Doan- signer at Bank of America               http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/tam-doan-robosigner-bank-of-america_n_775225.html                                            http://realestate.about.com/b/2010/10/28/tam-doan-i-was-a-bank-of-america-robosigner-oct-28-2010.htm

Chris Jones –  http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

Brenda McKinzyhttp://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924 http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122195-bank-of-america-suspends-foreclosure-proceedings-in-23-states

Daniella Marie Garretthttp://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924  http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122195-bank-of-america-suspends-foreclosure-proceedings-in-23-states

Debra Lymanhttp://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924 http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122195-bank-of-america-suspends-foreclosure-proceedings-in-23-states

John Crandallhttp://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924 http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122195-bank-of-america-suspends-foreclosure-proceedings-in-23-states http://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo

Leigh Blackwellhttp://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924 http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122195-bank-of-america-suspends-foreclosure-proceedings-in-23-states

Martha Kunkle– died in 1995-see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576049902142690400.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Melissa Bellhttp://www.deanmostofi.com/?p=924  http://www.massrealestatelawblog.com/2010/10/02/major-lenders-halt-foreclosures-over-concerns-with-faulty-documents/  http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/georgia-notary-fraud-revealed-by-tv-investigation/  http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122195-bank-of-america-suspends-foreclosure-proceedings-in-23-states http://homesolutioncounselors.com/indymac-onewest-time-to-halt-foreclosures

Stanley Silvahttp://www.gastonforeclosures.org/full_deposition_transcript_of_ticor_title_stanley_silva__notice_of_defaults__lps__fidelity__mers__wells_fargo 

BANK OF AMERICA ROBO-SIGNERS – AS RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORDS  FILED / EFFECTIVE DATE 3/18/2010  http://www.scribd.com/doc/40927249/Bank-Of-America-Robo-signer-List

Carrie Erbe– Senior Vice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Catherine M. Gorlewski– Senior Vice President Vice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Jeanette Grodsky– Senior Vice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Suzanne M. Haumesser – Senior Vice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Cynthia A. Mach– Senior Vice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Mark Acosta – Senior Vice-President- of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Brandon Sciumbato– Senior Vice President

John S. Smith– Senior Vice President

David P. Sunlin – Senior Vice President

Christine AlbertVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Lisa AllinsonVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Micall  BachmanVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Lance BellVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Donald R. ClarkVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Kimberly DawsonVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Renee HertzlerVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Lancia HerzogVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Mary  LoosVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Mary KistVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Michael PrindleVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Rhoena RiceVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Sheri SolumVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Melissa ViverosVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Rhonda WestonVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Jill WosnakVice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Gregory Higeons – Assistant Vice  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Michele Holtz – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Kaneisha Hunley- Assistant Vice President  of  Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Holly M. Jarmusz – Assistant Vice President of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Deborah A. Jurek – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Barbara Komisarof – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Bridget Lett – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Cody Mahon – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Cheryl Mallory- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Susan McCaughan- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Timothy E. Moran- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Roxanne Nowicki- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Frances Pecoraro- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

David M, Perez- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Laura M. Pirritano – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Tania Ramos – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Robert Rybarczyk- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Ken Satsky- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Joyce Sciumbato – Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Keri Selman- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Teresa Skinner- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

TiaQuanda Turner- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Sandra Williams- Assistant Vice President  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Ashley Barraza – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Destiny Bentley – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Tyira Ganison – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Benjamin Hillis – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Julia Myra- Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Gregory J. Price – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Donna Powell- Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Kathy Repka – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Gail Stein – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Vicki Lynn Vasquez – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Lisa Wickser – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Rachelle Wickware – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

Diane Young – Assistant Secretary  of Bank of America / BAC GP, LLC / BAC Home Loans LP formerly Countrywide Home Loans

ADDITIONAL ALLEGED SIGNERS ALPHABETICAL BY FIRST NAME


Aimee Austin

Amie Davis

Amy Jo Cauthern-Munoz

Amy Payment

Amy Weis

Andrew Keardy

Angela L. Freckman

Andres Rojas

Ann Pinto

Anne Sutcliffe

Annmarie Morrison

Azin Rahmanpanah

Bernadette Polux

Bernice Thell

Beverly Clark

Bharati Lengade

Brian J. LaForest

Brock Martin

Cardless Dixon

Carolyn Mcleod

Cathy Hagstrom

Charmaine Marchesi

Christopher Bray

Chyrs Houston

Clifton Childs

Craig Hanlon

Craig Hinson

Dawn L. Reynolds

Denise A. Marvel

Donna McNaught

Dory or Dorey Goebel

Dulce Diaz

Eileen J. Gonzales

Elizabet Geretschlaeger

Emmanuel Tabot

Erika Reyes

Erika Spencer

Etsuko Kaybeya

Fanessa Fuller

Fedelis Fondunggallah

Felix Amenumey

Fifi Volgarkis

Frank Coon

Gloria Karau

Hang Luu

Hari Charagundla

Indgrid Pittman

Jacqueline Brown

Jamie Bilot

Jamil Kahin

Jan Zimmerman

Janeete Boatman

Janice M. Baker

Jason Dreher

Jason Emory

Jeff Rivas

Jennifer Duncan

Jeremy Cox

Jerrie Moton

Jerry Yang

Joel Martinson

John Cody

Joseph Alvarado

Joseph Lutz

Joseph P. Hillery

Judith Stone

Julie Coon

Katie Zrust

Katrina Bailey

Katrina Whitfield

Katrina Whitfiled-Bailey

Keith Chapman

Keith S. Reno

Kevin Fletcher

Keo Maney Kue Vang

Kim Kenny

Kim Kinney

Kim Mullins

Kim Waldroff

Kimberly Sanford

Kimley Godfrey

Kimbretta Duncan

Kyurstina Lawton

Larry Dingmann

Laura Hescott

Leticia Arias

Lindsay Lesch

Lisa Gerard

Marcia Medley

Margie Kwiatanowsk

 

Marisa G. Carrasco

 

Margery A Rotundo

Marisa Menza

Maya Stevenson

Mellisa Ziertman

Mellissa Mosloski

Melody Moore

Michael Ackerman

Michael H. Moreland

Michael Hanna

Michele Boiko

Michelle Flores

Michelle Halyard

Mutru Kumar

Natalie Anderson

Neil E. Dyson

Paige Sahr

Pam Anderson

Pam Kammerer

Pam January

Pat Kingston

Paul Bruha

Paul Hunt

Paul Mann-notary

Peggy Glass

Peter Read

R.P. Umali

Rashonda Turner

Rebecca Verdeja

Renae Stanton

Renee L. Hensley

Richard Delgado

Richard Olasande

Rick Wilken

Robert E. Kaltenbach

Robyn Colburn

Rodney Cadwell

Rona Ramos

Roy Stringfellow

Sakhada Lad

Salena Edwards

Sara Rubin

Sarah Block

Sarah Rubin

Scott Anderson

Scott Keller

Scott W. Anderson

September Stoudemire

Sheri Bongaarts

Shivani L. Ram

Silvia Marchan

Steve A. Nielsen

Steve Ballman

Steve Moe

Steven Grount

Sue Fillczkowski

Susan Nightingale

Tam Doan

Tammy Brooks-Saleh

Tammy Saleh

Taylor Moore

Teresa DeBaker

Tina Jones

Tishana Gibbs

Toccoa Lenair

Treva Moreland

Van Johnson

Varsha Thakkar

Verdine A Freeman

Vicki Kyle

Victor Perez

Vinod Vishwakarma

Vishal Karingada

Whitney Lewis

Yvette Day

 


 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF ALLEGED ROBO-SIGNERS* AND LINKS*

*NOTE: FOR THE NAMES LISTED BELOW, TO FIND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION JUST PLACE YOUR MOUSE ON NAME, PRESS THE CONTROL BUTTON AND LEFT CLICK AT THE SAME TIME AND THE WEBSITE WILL LEAD YOU TO A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT OF THAT PERSON

Allen, Greg       Allen, Greg.1       Allen, Greg.2       

Allen, Greg.4       

Allotey, Liquenda       Allotey, Liquenda.1       

Allotey, Liquenda.3       Allotey, Liquenda.4       

Allotey, Liquenda.6       

Anderson, Christine       Anderson, Christine.1       

Arce, Michael Matthew       

Arias, Leticia

Boytchev, Galina.1       Boytchev, Galina.2       

Brown, China       

Burgess, Jonathan

Castro, Vilma       Castro, Vilma.1       Castro, Vilma.2       

Causevic, Rusmir       

Cavka, Esad       

Chua, James       

Ciarlariello, Carolin       

Clements, Ashley       Clements, Ashley.1       

Clements, Ashley.3

Coats, Stacy

Cody, John       

Costello, Loretta V       

Cullaro, Erin (appointment to Assistant State Attorney General – March 4, 1996

Cullaro, Erin       Cullaro, Erin.1       Cullaro, Erin.2       

Cullaro, Erin.4       Cullaro, Erin.5       Cullaro, Erin.6       

Cullaro, Erin.8       

Cullaro, John       Cullaro, John.1       Cullaro, John, 2       

Cullaro, John.4       Cullaro, John.5       Cullaro, John.6       

Cullaro, Lisa       Cullaro, Lisa.1       Cullaro, Lisa.2       

Cullaro, Lisa.4       Cullaro, Lisa.5       

Cullaro, Lisa.7       Cullaro, Lisa.8        Cullaro, Lisa.9

Dallavalle, Cherita       

Dalton, Margaret       Dalton, Margaret.1       

Dalton, Margaret.3       Dalton, Margaret.4       

Dalton, Margaret.6       Dalton, Margaret.7       

Dalton, Margaret.9       Dalton, Margaret.10       

Davila, Monique       Davila, Monique.1       Davila, Monique.2       

Dhimitri, Alisa       

Doko, Dhurata       Doko, Dhurata.1       Doko, Dhurata.2       

Doko, Dhurata.4       

Douglas, Sarah L

Esposito, Michael Ro

Eubanks, Richard H

Faber, Judy       

Fadil, Ingrid       

Frazier, Brenda       

Freeman, Jacquelyn

Gorman, Kim       

Green, Linda       Green, Linda.1       Green, Linda.2       

Griffith, Scott A       Griffith, Scott A.1       Griffith, Scott A.2       

Guerrero, Irene

 Harvey, Laura       Harvey, Laura.1       

Hosenfeld, Amanda Elizabeth          

Hosenfeld, Amanda Elizabeth.2          

Howard, Caroly

 Hunter, Rose       Hunter, Rose.1       Hunter, Rose.2       

Hutchinson, Cheryl

Johnson, Cherri       

 

Jones, Chris       

Jones, Christopher       

Jones, William C

Kaminski, Joseph       Kaminski, Joseph.1        

Kaminski, Joseph.3       Kaminski, Joseph.4       

Kane, Alexandra       

Kelley, Justin J       Kelley, Justin J.1       Kelley, Justin J.2       

Kelly, Adrienne       

Kennerty, Herman John       Kennerty, Herman John.1       

Kennerty, John       

Kingston, Pat       

Klein, Connie       

Kosciuk, Henry John

Lalovic, Zoran       Lalovic, Zoran.1       

Lamet, Judith       

Layden, Scott G       

Lazzara, Troy       Lazzara, Troy.1       Lazzara, Troy.2       

Leonard, Lynn B       

Love, Topako

Malcomson, Karen       

Manson, Heather       

Marcum, M.L.

Maslak, Michael L       Maslak, Michael L.1       

Maslak, Michael L.3       

McEwen, Wendy       McEwen, Wendy.1       McEwen, Wendy.2       

McEwen, Wendy.4       

McNulty, Deborah A       McNulty, Deborah A.1       

McNulty, Deborah A.3       McNulty, Deborah A.4       

McNulty, Deborah A.6       McNulty, Deborah A.7       

McNulty, Deborah A.9       McNulty, Deborah A.10       

McNulty, Deborah.2       McNulty, Deborah.3       

McNulty, Deborah.5       McNulty, Deborah.6       

Medic, Velida       Medic, Velida.1       Medic, Velida.2       

Mesker, Jonathan       Mesker, Jonathan.1       

Mesker, Jonathan.3       Mesker, Jonathan.4       

Miner, Patricia       Miner, Patricia.1       

Moore, Amy J       

Moore, Crystal       Moore, Crystal.1       Moore, Crystal.2       

Moore, Crystal.4       Moore, Crystal.5       Moore, Crystal.6       

Moore, Crystal.8       Moore, Crystal.9       

Morales, Marisol       

Morris, James C       Morris, James C.1       Morris, James C.2       

Moua, Shoua       Moua, Shoua.1       Moua, Shoua.2       

Munoz, Florina       Munoz, Florina.1       Munoz, Florina.2       

Munoz, Nina       Munoz, Nina.1       Munoz, Nina.2       

Munoz, Nina.4       Munoz, Nina.5       

Muros, Melissa

Nadarevic, Nura       Nadarevic, Nura.1       Nadarevic, Nura.2       

Noriega, Marti

Ohde, Jessica       

Oterino, Mayret

Palermo, Michael James       

Patrick, Steven       

Pekusic, D       

Pidala, Andrea       

Poole, Yolanda

Rice, Ron G., Jr.       Rice, Ron G., Jr.1       

Riley, Cynthia       Riley, Cynthia.1       Riley, Cynthia.2       Riley, Cynthia.

Roe, Abigail       

Rosenthal, Arnold S

Russ, Kirk M
Sears, Thomas A. Esq.- http://www.operationrest.org/GAClassAction

Ustovic, Enso       Ustovic, Enso.1       Ustovic, Enso.2

Vu, Mai

Williams, Darryl K       Williams, Darryl K.1       

Williams, Darryl K.3       

Williams, Dawn       

Williams, Sonya       

Wissner, Karen

 

KNOWN ALLEGED BANKSTERS, FRAUDSTERS, WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS

And other assorted co-conspirators to

FORECLOSURE FRAUD a.k.a. FRAUDCLOSURE

Ablitt Law Offices, P.C.
Account Portfolios
Accredited Home Lenders
ACORN
Adler & Associates
Aegis Mortgage
AIG
Alegis Group
Alliance Mortgage Group
AllianceOne Receivables Management
AllianceOne, Inc.
Allied Home Mortgage Capital
Allied Interstate
All State Mortgage Lender
ALLTEL

Ally Financial
Altegra Credit Company
Alternative Home Financing
Aman Collection Service
AMC (Ameriquest)
American Alliance for Loan Management
American Coradius
American General Finance
American Home Modifications
American Recovery Systems
American Revenue
American Servicing Company
America’s Mortgage Banc
American Legal Process
America’s Servicing Company
Ameri-CK
Ameridebt
Amerifund Home Mortgage
Ameriquest Mortgage
Amerix
AmNet Mortgage
AMO Recoveries,
Asset Management Outsourcing
Appletree Mortgage
Argent Mortgage (Ameriquest)
Arrow Financial Services
Ashwood Financial
Asset Acceptance Capital Corp
Asset Acceptance Corporation
Asset Protection & Recovery Solutions, L.L.C.
Associated Recovery Systems/ ARS National Services
Associates  (Citigroup)
Atlantic Credit & Finance
Aurora Loan Servicing
Balboa Insurance
Banc Boston Mortgage
Bank of America
Bank of New York
Bank One/Banc One
Bank United
Bankers Trust of California
Barrett – Burke 
Baum Law Firm
Bayview Financial LP
Bear Stearns
Bear Stearns Mortgage (a.k.a. EMC Mortgage)
Beneficial
Beneficial Financial Services
Bennett & Deloney
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
Best Interest Rate Mortgage Company
Bierman, Geesing & Ward, LLC
Blatt, Hasenmiller
Blitt & Gaines
Bonded Collection Corporation
Boudreau & Associates
Bowman, Heintz
The Law Office of Brett Margolin PC
Bronson  &Migliaccio, LLP
Brice, Vander Linden & Wernick P.C.
Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger
Bureaus Investment
Burke, Costanza & Cuppy
Burroughs & Smythe Financial Services
Calmco / Olympus
Cambridge Credit
Cambridge Credit Counseling
Capital City Mortgage
Capital Management Services
Capital Mortgage Services
Capitol Credit Service (Madison, WI)
Castle Meinhold & Stawarski, LLC
Cavalry
C-BASS (Litton Loan Servicing)
CBE Group
CCB Credit Services
Celink
Cendant Mortgage
Cenlar F.S.B
Centex Home Equity
Central Pacific Mortgage
Certegy
CFIC Home Mortgage
Chase Financial Funding
Chase Manhattan Mortgage
Chase Mortgage

Chex Systems
CitiCorp Mortgage
CitiFinancial Mortgage
CitiMortgage
City Finance (Washington Mutual)
Client Services, Inc.
Coalition for Fair and Affordable Housing
Coldata
Collect America, LTD
Collectcorp
Collection Associates
Collins Financial
Comerica Bank
Commercial Credit
Conseco
Consumer Credit Counseling
Consumer Data Industry Association
ConsumerInfo.com
ContiMortgage
Conti-Mortgage
Continental Services
Countrywide Mortgage
CR Title Services
Credit Bureau Enterprises
Credit Collection Service
Credit Management Services
Credit Protection Association
Creditors’ Alliance
Creditors Interchange
Credit Suisse First Boston
Credit Union National Mortgage
Creve Coeur Mortgage
Cross Country Bank
Crossland Mortgage
CSFB
CTX Mortgage Co.
D&B Receivables Mangagement
Tam Doan
Law office of David J.Stern
DebtOne
Debtworks
Decision One Mortgage
Delta Financial

Deutsche Trust (Bankers Trust)
DiTech Funding (.com)
Ditech.com
Diversified Adjustment Services
DJSP Enterprises Inc.
DLJ Mortgage Acceptance
Dovenmuehle Mortgage
Docx
Draper, Goldberg
Dun & Bradstreet RMS
DUNSCOMM
Dymacol
eAppriaseIT
EMC Mortgage Corporation
Emerald Home Loan
EMPIRE MORTGAGE
Encore Capital Group
Encore Receivable
Entrust Financial Services
Epstein & Frisch
Equicredit (NationsBank n.k.a. Bank of America)
Equifirst
Equity One
ER Systems
E*Trade Bank
Everest Consumer Svcs.
Everhome
Experian
Fairbanks Capital (nka – Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS)
FBCS (Philadelphia, PA)
Federal Loan Modification Law Center and Federal Loan Modification
Ferleger & Associates
FedMod

Fein, Such & Crane
Fidelity et al
Fieldstone Mortgage
Fifth Third Bank
Finance America
Financial Asset Management
Financial Credit Corporation
Financial Recovery Services
Financial Resources Mortgage Inc.

First Alliance
First Alliance Mortgage
First American Investment Company
First Beneficial Mortgage
First Capital Mortgage
First Franklin Financial (NCFS)
First Horizon
First Horizon Home LoanL
First Metropolitan Mortgage
First Nationwide Mortgage
First NLC Financial Services
First Pacific Corp.
First Performance Recovery
First Residential Mortgage (Louisville, KY)
First Select Corporation
FlexPoint Funding (HomeFirst)
FLM Law Center LLP
Florida Default Law Group
FMA Enterprises
Fordham Investment Group
ForeclosureLink
Fourscore
Frankel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP
Franklin Credit Management
Franklin Credit Management (FCMC)
Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae
Freemont Investment & Loan
Fulbright & Jaworski
Full Spectrum Lending
FSA
Gateway Bank
GC Services
GE Capital
GE Consumer Finance
Gerald E. Moore & Associates

Tishana Gibbs
GMAC or GMAC Mortgage Corp.
Goldbeck, McCafferty, & McKeever
Goldman Sachs
Grabowski & Greene
Greatstone
Green Light Financial

Greentree Financial
GreenPoint Mortgage
Guaranty Bank
Guaranty Residential Lending
Guaranty Residential Mortgage Corporation
Gulf State Credit
Guyer & Enichen
H&R Block Mortgage
Hammer Financial (Illinois)
Harmon Law Offices, P.C
Harris & Harris
Harvard Collection Services
Heady Financial
H.E. Servicing
HFC (Home Funding Corp.)

HiberniaHirsch & Westheimer
Holland & Knight
HomeBanc Mortgage
Homecomings Financial (GMAC)
Homecomings Financial Network
HomeEq (Wachovia/Money Store)
Homeloan Management Ltd
Homeq Servicing Corp.
HomeSavers USA
Homeside Lending (WAMU-Washington Mutual)
Homestar Mortgage
Household / Beneficial
Household Finance
Housing Assistance Services, Inc. (HAS)
HSBC
Hunt Leibert
I.C. System
Illinois Collection Services
IMC Mortgage
Indecomm Global Services
IndyMac Bank
Innovis
IntelliRisk
Irwin Home Equity
Irwin Union Bank & Trust
J. C. Christensen & Associates
JBC Legal Group (Boyajian)
Jessie Riddle & Associates
Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger
Jones Day
Jordan S. Katz, P.C.
J. P. Morgan/Chase
KCA Financial Services
Kramer & Frank
KeyBank
Landsafe
LaSalle Bank (ABN Amro)
Leader Mortgage
Lehman Brothers
Lenahan Law Offices
Lending Tree
Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss

Liberty Mortgage
Litton Loan Servicing
Loan Arranger (broker)
Loan Giant
Long Beach Mortgage
LTD Financial Services
Luminent Mortgage Capital
M.R.S. Associates
Macey, Wilensky, Cohen
Malcolm S. Gerald & Associates
Mann & StevensMaris & Lanier (Dallas)
Law offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale
McCalla Raymer
Maverick Acquisition Corp.
M & T Bank
McMahan & Sigunick
MEDCLR
Medical Collection System/ Robert Mistovich
Mercantile Mortgage
Meritage Mortgage
Meritech Mortgage (formerly Saxon)
Merrill Lynch
Merrill Lynch Mortgage
MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Services)
Metropolitan Mortgage
MGIC
MidFirst Bank
Midland Credit Management/ MCM
Midland Mortgage
MKM Acquisitions
Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Lenders Network (MLNUSA)
MortgageIT
Moss, Codillis, Stawiarski, Morris, Schneider & Prior
Mozilo, AngeloMR Default
MRS Associates
M & T Bank
National Action Financial Services
National Asset Management Enterprises
National Asset Recovery Services
National City (Altegra)

National Enterprise Systems
National Financial Systems
Nations Credit
NationsBanc/Nationsbank
Nationwide Credit
Nationwide Modification Agency Inc
NB Lending
NCO
NCO Financial Systems
NCO Group

NDEx Technologies, LLC
Network Mortgage Servicing
New Century Financial Services, Inc.
New Century Mortgage
North Fork Bank (GreenTree)
Northland Group
NorWest Mortgage
Novastar
Ocwen/ Ocwen Federal Bank/ Ocwen Financial
Olympus Mortgage (Ameriquest)
Olympus Servicing

One West
Option One Mortgage (H&R Block)
Option One Mortgage (Irvine, Ca.)
Origen
Outsourcing Solutions (OSI)
Pacific Republic Mortgage
PCFS Mortgage Resources
People’s Choice Home Loan
Perry Homes
Peters and Freedman
PHH Mortgage
Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.

Pite Duncan, LLP
Pioneer Credit Recovery
Platinum Financial Services
Platinum Home Mortgage
Plaza Associates
PMI Group
Portfolio Recovery Associates
Portfolio Recovery Services
PRA III, LLC
Principal Residential Mortgage

Pro Com Services
Professional Credit Management
Professional Recovery Systems

Promiss Solutions
Protocol Recovery Service
Provident Bank
Quicken Loans
Quality Loan Service
RBMG
Receivables Management Solutions
Redline Recovery Services
Regent & Associates
Rels Valuation
REMIC
Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance
Residential Loan Centers of America
Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”)(1980′s Savings & Loan Scandal)
Revenue Management
Revenue Production Management, Inc. (RPM)
Risk Management Alternatives
RJM (Fingerhut)
ROBO-Signors (see below)
RRReview, Inc
RX Financial

Sand Canyon

Saxon Mortgage
Sagres Co.
Salvatore Spinelli
Saxon Mortgage Services
Schreiber & Associates of Danvers, Massachusetts
Schwartz & Schwartz
Security Finance Corporation of Oklahoma
Security National Servicing
Select Portfolio Servicing – SPS (formerly Fairbanks Capital)
Settleware.com
Shapiro & Fishman in Boca Raton

Shapiro & Fishman in Tampa
Shapiro & Kreisman
Sherman Acquisitions / Alegis
Smith, Hiatt and Diaz
Southwest Credit Corp.

Specialized Loan Services
Summit Mortgage
Sunrise Credit Services
Suntrust Mortgage
Superior Bank
Surpas Resource Corporation
Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.
Tate & Kirlin Associates
Temple Inland Mortgage
The Associates
Town and Country Credit
TranSouth Financial Corporation
Transworld
Trauner, Cohen & Thomas
U. S. Bank
Unifund
Unifund Group
United Financial Mortgage
United Law Group
Universal Fidelity Corporation
Upland Mortgage
U.S. Bank
U.S. Foreclosure Relief Corporation
U.S. Mortgage Corp.
Valentine & Kebartas
Van Ru Credit
Wachovia Bank
Walinski & Trunkett
Walsh Securities Inc.
Washington Mutual (WAMU)
The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. (Florida)
Wells Fargo
Weltman, Weinberg
Wendover Financial Services/
Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Co. (WMC)
Williams & Williams
Wilshire Credit Corp
WMC Mortgage

Wolf Law Firm
Wolpoff & Abramson
World Wide Financial Services
Worldwide Asset Management
Worldwide Asset Purchasing

Worldwide Financial Resources
Worldzen
Znet Financial
Zwicker & Associates

Final words: the “Robo” actions are just the tip of the iceberg but the “Robo” actions allowed part of the iceberg to be seen.

CONTACTS, INFORMATIONAL & SOCIAL SITES OF FORECLOSURE SELF-DEFENSE

MAIN WEBSITE- WWW.FORECLOSURESELF-DEFENSE.COM

SECONDARY WEBSITE- WWW.TAKEYOURHOMEBACK.COM

FACEBOOK- FORECLOSURE SELF DEFENSE

TWITTER- https://twitter.com/4CLOSUREDEFENSE

YOUTUBE VIDEOS- http://www.youtube.com/4closuredefense

GMAIL- FORECLOSURESELFDEFENSE@GMAIL.COM

BEFORE ITS NEWS- FORECLOSURE DEFENDER – http://beforeitsnews.com/bio/

BLOGS- http://foreclosureselfdefense.wordpress.com/

ADMIN DIRECT E-MAIL- lou@foreclosureself-defense.com

DISCLAIMER-

SEE FOR FULL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

http://www.foreclosureself-defense.com/disclaimer/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Current Issues in Wrongful Foreclosure

23 Mar

Where are the Indictments? – 2012-03-21 10:27:13-04

Abigail C. Field- Let’s be clear why there’s a mortgage deal: the banks broke the law. Several laws in fact, in ways that appear criminal as well as civil. Limiting their liability is the only reason the banks did a deal. In this post I’m going to look at what the banks could be held liable […]YGcSvULm-Hw

PRESS RELEASE: NEIL F GARFIELD HOME FROM SURGERY – 2012-03-21 13:55:27-04

We wish him speedy recovery. via: LivingLies FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 21, 2012. Phoenix, Az. Neil F Garfield had emergency open heart surgery on Wednesday, March 7. The surgery was successful and he has been discharged from the hospital. He is now recovering at home. Neil has started writing again, and is hoping to return […]T5SmQe1H3cU

Read Lan Pham’s letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley re: MERS/Securitization – 2012-03-21 15:38:05-04

LAN T. PHAM February 23,2011 Senator Chuck Grassley Ranking Member United States Senate Judiciary Committee 135 Hart Senate Offrce Building Washington, DC 20510 Re: Inquiry into Reprisal Action by the Congressional Budget Office Dear Ranking Member Grassley: At the suggestion of Mr. Gary Aguirre, I describe below the circumstances of my discharge by the Congressional […]AwDICE0HB0o

‘Whistleblower’ Lan Pham Says Mortgage Securitization Still an Issue for U.S. Homeowners – 2012-03-21 16:15:12-04

ABC- Lan Pham, an economist fired by the Congressional Budget Office two years ago, is still asking whether the watchdog agency appeared to “diminish or deny” the problem of foreclosure fraud while providing analysis to Congress. As lawmakers enter budget season in Washington D.C. and wrangle over House Republicans’ new budget blueprint, Pham is hoping […]ZPToy2K1XK4

Yes, Wall Street banks pay off top financial journalists. Why do you ask? – 2012-03-21 16:40:38-04

H/T Matt Stoller cjr.org- In this toxic climate, many financial journalists are on edge, worried that any misstep could make them the target of criticism for being too cozy with Wall Street. Back in October, New York Times op-ed columnist Joe Nocera, who often writes about finance, was taken to task by media critic Erik […]CL99jcFeK-I

Lisa Epstein For Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts – 2012-03-21 21:54:56-04

L1, We will do all possible to make this a reality for you. Palm Beach Post- – Clerk of Courts Sharon Bock has drawn a Democratic primary challenge from foreclosure-fighting activist Lisa Epstein, who has attracted a national following for exposing suspicious foreclosure paperwork from lending institutions. Epstein wants the clerk’s office to help crack […]i65eWAxJQao

San Francisco Foreclosures Protested By State Officials: Supervisor Avalos Calls For Moratorium – 2012-03-21 23:06:01-04

HuffPO- Supervisor John Avalos introduced a resolution on Tuesday calling for a moratorium on San Francisco home foreclosures until state and federal measures protecting homeowners from unlawful practices are in place. He also urged officials to support the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, a collection of six bills that would protect borrowers from mortgage fraud […]EFtnrVjxt5g

Opponents challenge Rep. Passidomo on foreclosure bill that would have hurt, detroy homeowners in Florida – 2012-03-21 23:21:55-04

Naples Daily- Political opponents of a Naples state legislator running for re-election have found ammunition in her fast-track foreclosure bill, which brewed statewide controversy before it died earlier this month. Rep. Kathleen Passidomo, the Republican incumbent in the state House of Representatives, said she isn’t sure whether she will resurrect the bill in the 2013 […]u3kncjBL8t4

Georgia State Senate Unanimously Approves Bill Criminalizing Foreclosure Fraud (HB 237) – 2012-03-21 23:29:29-04

PRESS ADVISORY Wednesday, March 21, 2012 Georgia Senate Unanimously Approves Bill Criminalizing Foreclosure Fraud Today, the Senate unanimously approved HB 237, legislation that will make foreclosure fraud a crime in Georgia. Currently, Georgia law criminalizes fraud during the mortgage process, but specifically does not penalize similar fraud on the back end of the loan – at […]_gEa0L8HaTA

New MBS twist: Sand Canyon sues servicer for releasing loan info – 2012-03-21 23:40:22-04

Alison Frankel- Just when you think you’ve seen it all in mortgage-backed securities litigation, along comes the likes of Sand Canyon to prove you wrong. The onetime California mortgage lender, which stopped originating loans in late 2007 and sold its servicing business to American Home Mortgage Servicing in 2008, has filed a complaint in New […]VOTmIJE3Cmw

COMPLAINT | Sand Canyon Corp. v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc – 2012-03-21 23:45:00-04

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK Sand Canyon Corporation, Plaintiff v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. Defendant Scribd © 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. www.StopForeclosureFraud.com-5ZECxCXz7A

Byrd v. MorEQUITY, INC., Ala: Court of Civil Appeals | “The conflict as to the date of (MERS) assignment materially impacts the standing issue” – 2012-03-21 23:52:16-04

Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd, v. MorEquity, Inc. No. 2100734.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.Decided March 16, 2012.MOORE, Judge. Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Mobile Circuit Court (“the trial court”) in an ejectment action filed by MorEquity, Inc. We reverse. Procedural

CAMFFG Johnson v. HSBC – CA fed ct denies HSBC’s mot to dismiss foreclosure / MERS /”securitization-fail” /fraud claims

23 Mar

CAMFFG Cheat Sheet: Long-Awaited Final Terms of $25B Mortgage Settlement

23 Mar

Making Fraud Just a Business Expense

21 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:21 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Making Fraud Just a Business Expense

Two Bloomberg Law videos weighing in on the “settlement” with 49 AGs…

http://corporatelaw.jdsupra.com/post/19359854162/foreclosure-settlement-a-legal-roundup

Further evisceration of the rule of law!

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Defending or Litigating Foreclosure?
Click Here For More Information

Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst. Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.

New Bankruptcy Proof of Claim Rules Take Effect

20 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:29 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: New Bankruptcy Proof of Claim Rules Take Effect

New Bankruptcy Proof of Claim Rules Take Effect

March 14, 2012

Michael Proctor

As seen in the Spring 2012 issue of West Virginia Banker.

In the wake of the national attention directed towards residential mortgages in the last few years, certain revisions were made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to address perceived deficiencies in bankruptcy proofs of claim. The rule changes were first proposed in 2009 by the Judicial Conference of the United States and became effective December 1, 2011.

The most noticeable change is the requirement that a new Proof of Claim form (Official Form 10) be used for all bankruptcy claims.1 Of additional importance to creditors of individual debtors, new requirements have been added for claims in individual cases, especially with regard to mortgage claims involving the debtor’s principal residence. These changes are contained in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c).

Official Form 10:

Upon reviewing the revised Form 10 for the first time, apart from minor stylistic changes,2 a creditor will note two substantial revisions to Boxes 7 and 8.

Box 7 previously allowed the option to “attach a summary” of the documents supporting the claim. This option has been removed and the Form now requires a creditor to attach “redacted copies of the documents that support the claim.” In practice, it is doubtful that many creditors attached a summary rather than the actual documents. But that option has been removed, emphasizing the goals of the Judicial Conference to ensure that claims are supported with complete documentation.

Box 8 previously required a claimant to sign the box and list her title. A proof of claim could be filed by “the creditor or other person authorized” to file the proof of claim. The new form requires that the signatory specifically identify her basis for filing the claim by listing her name, title, company, address, telephone number and email address, and by affirming that she falls into one of the following categories:

“I am the creditor.”

“I am the creditor’s authorized agent.” (Attach copy of power of attorney, if any.)”

“I am the trustee, or the debtor, or their authorized agent. (See Bankruptcy Rule 3004.)”

“I am a guarantor, surety, indorser, or other codebtor. (See Bankruptcy Rule 3005.)”

The revisions to box 8 also include a statement above the line for the signatory stating: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this claim is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and reasonable belief.” Signing a proof of claim has always been subject to the penalty of perjury, but the inclusion of this statement in the form appears to be yet another example of the intent of the drafters to ensure the accuracy of the claims by reminding the signatory of the gravity of filing a claim. The penalty for filing of a fraudulent claim continues to be prominently displayed on the face of the form: “Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.”

Of particular importance here is the case where a servicing agent files a proof of claim. According to the official Advisory Committee Note, “when a servicing agent files a proof of claim on behalf of a creditor, the individual completing the form must sign it and must provide his or her own name, as well as the name of the company that is the servicing agent.” Given that the rules were amended largely in response to residential mortgage servicing concerns, mortgage servicers must pay special attention and should review their internal policies to ensure they are in conformity with the new rules.

The best practice is for the signatory to have personally reviewed the account records and be authorized in the scope of her employment by the creditor to make the statements that are included in the claim.

Rule 3001(c)

The former Rule 3001(c) is now re-designated as Rule 3001(c)(1). Rule 3001(c)(1) imposes no changes to prior practice. As previously, when a proof of claim is based on a writing, the writing must be filed with the proof of claim. However, creditors should be aware of brand new requirements contained in Rule 3001(c)(2) which apply to bankruptcies filed by individuals.

Rule 3001(c)(2) mandates that if a claim in an individual’s bankruptcy contains more than the principal balance, an itemized statement must be filed. A creditor must categorize components of the claim as “interest, fees, expenses, or other charges.” As a practical matter it will be important to further itemize the “other” category to avoid scrutiny by debtors’ counsel, trustees and the courts.

Additionally, if the creditor claims a security interest in the individual debtor’s property, “a statement of the amount necessary to cure any default as of the date of the petition shall be filed with the proof of claim.” Also, if the contractual payment includes an escrow component, an escrow account statement must be attached. Given that escrow payments may change upon the filing of bankruptcy, the best practice would be to include a statement explaining the last pre-petition payment amount as well as the first post-petition payment amount. It would also be good practice to include a running escrow account ledger.

Finally, Rule 3001(c)(2) allows a court to impose sanctions if a creditor fails to provide any required information. Specifically, a court may preclude the creditor “from presenting the omitted information, in any form, as evidence in any contested matter or adversary proceeding in the case” and/or award to the debtor appropriate attorney fees and expenses caused by the failure to provide the information.

This provision is important because normally a proof of claim is prima facie evidence of the creditor’s claim – meaning that the debtor has the burden to contradict the claim. But, if Rule 3001 sanctions were imposed, a creditor may not be able to rely on the proof of claim as evidence and could be precluded from arguing that it was entitled to collect the particular item in a motion to terminate the automatic stay, objection to the proof of claim, adversary proceeding or other contested matter.

Specific Changes for the Debtor’s Principal Residence

While Rule 3001(c)(2) applies to all claims in which the debtor is an individual, the biggest change to prior practice applies to proofs of claim that are based on a security interest in the debtor’s principal residence.3 For such claims, a creditor must attach a new form Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment (Attachment A).4

Attachment A requires an itemization of the principal and interest as of the petition date, a statement of all items that are not principal and interest, and a statement of the amount necessary to cure the default as of the petition date. The form provides categories for the mortgage creditor to facilitate complete disclosure of all payments, suspense accounts and related fees and costs. Each collectible pre-petition item must be disclosed in the relevant category.

Proper completion of Attachment A would appear to satisfy all of Rule 3001(c)(2)’s new requirements, whether the claim is for the debtor’s principal residence or otherwise. Therefore, even though Attachment A is required only for residential mortgage claims, creditors may consider implementing a form attachment for use in all individual claims to ensure compliance.

Conclusion

In summary, creditors should become familiar with the new proof of claim rules and forms. Particular attention should be given to filing claims which are secured by residential mortgages due to the requirements of additional information and the use of a new supporting attachment. It is also extremely important that claims include all required information and that signatories have first-hand knowledge of the account and are properly authorized to sign the proof of claim.

_______________________

(1) http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/BK_Forms_Current/B_010.pdf

(2) The most notable is new Box 3B, the Uniform Claim Identifier. This item is optional and was included as a benefit to creditors who use an Identifier to facilitate electronic payment in Chapter 13 cases.

(3) The scope of this Article is the initial Proof of Claim. Mortgage creditors should also be aware of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1. This Rule requires disclosure of post-petition payment changes, notice of fees and expenses as well as other provisions for Chapter 13 claims secured by the debtor’s principal residence. Official forms: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/BK_Forms_Current/B_010S1.pdf and

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/BK_Forms_Current/B_010S2.pdf

(4) http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/BK_Forms_Current/B_010A.pdf

REMIC tax concerns surrounding foreclosures

19 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 6:30 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: REMIC tax concerns surrounding foreclosures

REMIC tax concerns surrounding foreclosures

· Alston & Bird LLP

· John Baron and Robert J. Sullivan

· USA

·

· March 6 2012

A Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) is an entity employed to securitize loans secured by real property and that has been granted tax-favored status. In the current economic environment, due to the fact that they hold primarily commercial or residential mortgages, REMICs are commonly faced with workouts of troubled loans. The tax rules1 that apply to REMICs place restrictions on the activities of a REMIC and the assets a REMIC can hold without risking its tax-favored status. These rules apply to performing and nonperforming loans alike, and therefore restrict when, how and what a REMIC can hold when it forecloses on a loan. The tax rules relating to foreclosure property held by a REMIC are intended to prevent a REMIC from engaging in activities that are the equivalent of operating a business.

What Property Can a REMIC Hold upon Foreclosure?

In order to maintain its preferred tax status, a trust formed as a REMIC is permitted to hold only “qualified mortgages” and “permitted investments.” The tax rules define the term “permitted investments” to include “foreclosure property” as that concept is set forth in the rules applicable to Real Estate Investment Trusts. Generally speaking, foreclosure property is any real property (including interests in real property), as well as personal property incident to such real property, that is acquired by the REMIC via a foreclosure as a result of a default on the loan that such property secured. The REMIC can acquire the property through foreclosure or a similar process, such as the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Foreclosure property would include real property and personal property incident to such real property, but would not include equity interests in an entity that owns such real or personal property. A REMIC cannot, therefore, foreclose on a pledge of equity in an entity.

If a REMIC holds more than a de minimis amount of nonpermitted assets (such as property that does not qualify as foreclosure property), its tax-favored status as a REMIC is terminated. If the REMIC holds only a de minimis amount of nonpermitted assets (less than 1 percent of the aggregate tax basis of all of the REMIC’s assets), the REMIC will not lose its status as a REMIC, but will still be subject to a 100 percent tax on any net income attributable to such nonpermitted assets. If, when the loan was transferred to the REMIC, the REMIC or its agents knew the loan was troubled and would likely result in a foreclosure, it cannot foreclose on the collateral and hold the property without paying the 100 percent tax.

How Long Can a REMIC Hold Foreclosure Property?

Importantly, foreclosure property can only be held by the REMIC until the end of the third taxable year following the taxable year in which the trust acquired the property, unless an extension is granted by the IRS. An extension will only be available if the REMIC can prove to the IRS that it is necessary for the orderly liquidation of the REMIC’s interest in the foreclosure property.

What Limitations Are Placed on a REMIC in Owning Foreclosure Property?

A REMIC will be subject to a 100 percent tax if it engages in certain prohibited activities with respect to foreclosure property. These prohibited activities include:

  • Leasing – the REMIC can’t enter into a lease under which it receives income other than “rents from real property” and other types of permitted income;
  • Construction – the REMIC can’t engage in construction on the foreclosure property other than completing a building or improvements that were begun pre-foreclosure and only so long as more than 10 percent of the construction was begun pre-foreclosure; and
  • Engaging in a Business – the REMIC can’t operate the property in a trade or business after an initial 90-day grace period other than through an independent contractor.

In order to avoid violating the prohibition against operating the property in a trade or business, the REMIC must employ the services of an independent contractor to manage the property after the initial 90-day grace period. Such manager must be truly independent and cannot exceed certain ownership levels in the REMIC.

If a REMIC engages in one of the prohibited activities with regard to the foreclosure property, it will be subject to a 100 percent tax on the income it receives from the foreclosure property, as well as any gain on the disposition of the property.

What Income from Foreclosure Property Is Taxable?

While the benefit of REMIC status is that it is not generally taxed on its income, there is an exception for “net income from foreclosure property.” To the extent a REMIC receives net income from foreclosure property, it will be taxed on such income at the highest corporate tax rates. Generally, the type of income on which a REMIC would be taxed is income from foreclosure property that does not qualify as “rents from real property.”

So long as income from foreclosure property qualifies as rents from real property, such income will not be taxed. Rental income does not qualify as rents from real property, and therefore will be subject to the tax on net income from foreclosure property, if (i) the amount of the rent is tied to the amount of income generated by such property, (ii) the rent is received from a party related to the REMIC, or (iii) the REMIC provides services to the lessee of the property that are not customary for the rental of real property. Services provided to tenants are considered customarily rendered in connection with the rental of real property based on comparisons to buildings of a similar class in the same geographic market. For example, providing utilities, general maintenance, parking facilities, swimming pool maintenance and security services will be considered customarily rendered if those services are provided to tenants of buildings of a similar class in the same geographic market. Further, such services must be provided by an independent contractor.

Assets such as shopping centers and office buildings typically generate income that qualifies as rents from real property because the services provided to tenants of such properties, such as utilities, general maintenance and janitorial services, are customarily provided in connection with the rental of real property. Such services, however, must be provided by an independent contractor.

Certain types of assets, such as a hotel or nursing home, typically produce income that is taxable. These types of assets commonly generate income that cannot be characterized as charges for services customarily rendered in connection with the rental of real property, such as a dry cleaning service offered by a hotel or a hair salon operated in a nursing home. Gross income from such assets is first reduced by any deductions or expenses directly connected to such gross income before the amount of tax is determined. The REMIC can, therefore, deduct from its gross taxable income items such as interest, depreciation and management fees associated with the property.

If an asset will generate taxable income, the REMIC may choose to enter into a master lease of the property. If a master lease structure is employed, the master tenant will operate the property and receive all income, and pay only a set amount of rent to the REMIC that is the landlord under the master lease, thereby preventing the REMIC from receiving any taxable income. In this situation, while the REMIC may escape the burden of paying tax on net income from foreclosure property, the master tenant will not likely be willing to pay as much rent as a tenant under a standard lease due to the increased responsibility and risk involved in operating the property itself.

Considerations for Servicers

The time periods in which property can be held, the type of collateral for a loan (real property vs. equity in an entity owning the real property) and the limited activities relating to the property in which the REMIC can engage while it holds the property are relevant factors to consider in its long-term approach to the workout of a troubled asset. A key decision for a servicer that has decided to foreclose is whether to operate the property through an independent contractor or to enter into a master lease of the property. If an independent contractor is engaged to operate the property and the property generates income other than rents from real property, such income will be taxable (less certain deductions as discussed above). While a master lease structure prevents the REMIC from receiving such taxable income, the REMIC will also receive less rent from a master tenant than it would a tenant under a standard lease.

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND SHREK’S ONION OF FRAUD

19 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:39 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND SHREK’S ONION OF FRAUD

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND SHREK’S ONION OF FRAUD

Author: L. Randall Wray · March 9th, 2012

In the last couple of weeks I’ve been pushing foreclosure fraud. Well, not pushing the fraud but rather arguing that foreclosure is fraud. It has to be. If a mortgage was registered at MERS, then the chain of title was broken. Broken chains mean the bank cannot foreclose. But that was MERS’s business model, and so most mortgages are “infected”. Still, there’s a lot more to it than that.

I’ve been arguing since early on in the crisis that the entire real estate food chain is like Shrek’s onion—as you peel back every layer you find fraud. From the appraiser to the broker, from the lender to the securitizer, from the recording of the mortgage sales to the securitization’s trustees, from the accounting firms that signed off on everything to the ratings agencies that rated everything AAA, from the investment banks that created CDOs to the hedge fund managers who bet against the synthetics Goldman sold to its own customers, and from the bank lawyers to the judges that help banks steal homes. The whole damned onion is fraud.

And most of it, today, is to cover up the chain of fraud that dates back to the early 2000s. It has been all fraud, all the time, since 2000.

As is widely noted, the FBI warned of an epidemic of fraud in 2004. The Fed’s FOMC discussed rising fraud even before that. While anecdotal evidence, alone, should not be enough to convince one, there is certainly plenty of it. Today I want to talk briefly about a couple more examples of the fraud that led up to the crisis.

Back in the year 2000, property appraisers began to complain that mortgage lenders were forcing them to over-value property. They actually put together a petition in 2000 and began to circulate it. They continued to add names until 2009! Here were their main complaints:

We, the undersigned, represent a large number of licensed and certified real estate appraisers in the United States, who seek your assistance in solving a problem facing us on a daily basis. Lenders (meaning any and all of the following: banks, savings and loans, mortgage brokers, credit unions and loan officers in general; not to mention real estate agents) have individuals within their ranks, who, as a normal course of business, apply pressure on appraisers to hit or exceed a predetermined value.

This pressure comes in many forms and includes the following:

  • the withholding of business if we refuse to inflate values,
  • the withholding of business if we refuse to guarantee a predetermined value,
  • the withholding of business if we refuse to ignore deficiencies in the property,
  • refusing to pay for an appraisal that does not give them what they want,
  • black listing honest appraisers in order to use “rubber stamp” appraisers, etc.

They collected 11,000 signatures! I don’t know how many appraisers there are in the country, but this had to be a big chunk—11,000 warnings of massive, pervasive, fraud. And that was the very first step of the food chain, the first layer of Shrek’s onion.

You can see the petition and signatures here: http://www.appraiserspetition.com/. The petition was widely circulated—I saw it well before the crisis hit. It was addressed to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and I am sure many in Congress and at the Fed saw it. They ignored it.

Go ahead and read through the signatures as the signers were allowed to make comments. Go back to the very first page of signatures; read it and weep. Then come back here. We’ll wait.

They warned:

*This is not good for the public at large! *Not only do we get subtle overtures to make value, we will be the first to get blame when loans go south. *It’s time to clean up this crap! Regulate and institute the lending institutions. *22 years as an appraiser this practice worsens every year. *L.O.’s (loan officers) have no standards or ethics, that I can tell. *This is an unfair practice and puts far too much pressure on the appraiser, since his/her livelihood is involved. *I remember the late 80′s to early 90′s when I was appraising properties for the FDIC during the bank take-overs. It’s coming. *Appraisers are like pawns in some mortgage brokers game. If they don’t get what they want, they blacklist you. *This list will become a ‘blacklist’.

Folks, this was 2000. Go ahead and scroll through the rest of the 11,000 signatures. Gee, do you think that if appraisers were already warning that property was being over-valued in 2000 that maybe that fraud might help to generate a speculative bubble? A bubble that continued for 6 more years?

Yet I can recall as late as 2007 that the Fed was sending out “professional” economists (one could use a much more derogatory word to describe such “professionals”) with “rigorous” papers demonstrating that housing prices were driven by “fundamentals”. There was no bubble, according to official and public Fed pronouncements right up to the crash. In fact, it was all bubble. As early as 2000. And then it just bubbled more, fueled by fraud.

The poor appraiser was only the first layer of fraud, and you’ve got to have a bit of sympathy. They raised a red flag, knowing that just by signing the petition warning of fraud, they could be blacklisted by the mortgage brokers. To be clear, that does not absolve them of responsibility. The petition makes clear that many of them bought the devil’s bargain. To save their own families, they lied—which has cost millions upon millions of families their homes. They played the fraud game with the mortgage brokers, and they’ve got to live with their guilt.

Now, of course, the individual mortgage brokers were only reacting to the demands of the mortgage lenders—who wanted high appraisals so they could make bigger loans to those less able to afford them. And the lenders, in turn, were responding to the demands of investment banks that wanted toxic mortgages to securitize. The raters had to give triple A to the trash—or like the appraisers, they’d get blacklisted. In the bulls-eye center of the fraud was the investment bank—the blood-sucking vampire squid of Wall Street—that drove the whole criminal enterprise. I’ll come back to this below, but the junk mortgage was the food that fed the investment bank beast. All the rest of the fraudsters were mere appendages. Yes, it ALWAYS comes back to Goldman Sachs. Just read John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Great Crash, which devotes a whole chapter to the Squid. This global financial crash will devote 9 chapters to the Squid.

Here’s the coda to the story on the appraisers. They’re getting blamed and sued—just as that poor lonely appraiser warned back in 2000: “we will be the first to get blame when loans go south”. Yep, and they are losing the lawsuits. Take a look here: http://www.appraiserlawblog.com/2010/03/appraiser-blacklist-class-action.html. Appraisers are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Some are suing the banksters: appraisers are pursuing class action suits against the banksters, asserting they were blacklisted if they refused to engage in fraudulent appraisals. The problem is that if they win, they are then subject to suit by homeowners (who are losing their homes) since they overpaid, and got mortgage loans that were far too high relative to “fundamentals”. I do not need to remind readers that these mortgage debtors are now massively underwater—thanks to the banksters that forced appraisers to jack up values far beyond what the homes were worth.

So, the wrong people are going to lose. Homeowners and property appraisers. Again, appraisers should have “just said no”. It is an easy thing to say in retrospect. But prosecutors should be going after the real criminals—all of whom still work at the “dirty dozen” top twelve banks. But that will not happen. President Obama has made that abundantly clear. No top fraudster will ever be investigated for fraud. That is national policy. Wall Street will be protected at all costs.

Here’s anecdote number two. I admit, this is nothing more than an anecdote but it is from someone I trust. This is about the brokers doctoring documents and about their lending banks continually insisting on lower underwriting standards. And I’ve heard many similar stories. Finally, it fits. It helps us to understand why all the layers of the onion were fraudulent. Here’s the story (it is long but worth the read):

“I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that mortgage broker supervisors were instructing their associates to add 10′s of Thousands of Dollars stated income to the applications (AFTER the borrowers had signed the applications). The banks knew it and encouraged (even instructed) the mortgage brokers to do this!!! Indeed, my own son, went to work with a mortgage broker; and during the mere two weeks he worked there, my son discovered that this was common practice (even “the plan”). During his very first mortgage application intake, he called both his father (a criminal and civil lawyer) and me (a foreclosure defense lawyer) — he was totally “freaked out” at what he was being “instructed” to do (namely: to add $40K to stated income of the applicant — without the applicant even knowing!). We, both, told our son to immediately clean-up his desk and walk out of the office without a word. And, yes, he also reported this to the state attorney’s office — but, alas, NO FOLLOW THROUGH. All in all, banksters were in a “feeding frenzy” to create as many securitized pools as quickly as possible. The financial industry (as a whole) was feeding “phony baloney” statistics and information to business journalists and the general media touting an unstoppable real estate boon. And all of this was intentionally done to facilitate “great impact for the buck” and to “Feed their Greed”.”

The Points: Mortgage brokers and the banks/lenders/REMICs “conspired” to “encourage” borrowers/real estate investors (those exactly like “the Ritters” in Fort Washington, Maryland — and other types of borrowers) to make as many such loans as possible. Moreover, banksters fraudulently induced borrowers by inflating the appraisals, presenting phony statistics and future predictions (on which borrowers relied to their detriment) – and “to hell” with legitimate underwriting!”

“The CONSPIRED PLAN: To create “attractive” securitized trust ”investments” to sell on Wall Street to “unsuspecting securitized trust investors.” NOTE: Many “Investors” being Pension Plans for blue collar workers, which were instructed by the Pension Plans to invest only in verifiable “LOW RISK” investment vehicles. And let’s not forget other types of employee Pension Plans, SUCH AS FOR LEGISLATORS AND JUDGES!!!! That’s a whole other “can of worms” resulting in “bank bias” in our judicial system and more (a discussion for another time).”

“ However, when the “world came tumbling down” precisely because of these illegal actions — the banksters REFUSED TO CORRECT THE ATTROCITIES by, at least, granting fixed interest rate refinance (upon borrower request and before a default); OR granting loan modifications (after “instructing“ borrowers to actually default — “so that they could be placed in the loan mod process”), OR granting short sales (with releases of deficiencies); OR granting deeds-in-lieu (with releases of deficiencies) — AND COMPLETELY FORGET ABOUT PRINCIPAL REDUCTIONS OF THESE ARTIFICIALLY AND INTENTIALLY INFLATED PROPERTY VALUES!!”

“So, yes, face the reality, it all comes back to “Those Miserable Banksters” and their greed to create securitized trusts — who intentionally encouraged (often even sought-out) “questionable” borrowers and real estate investors such as the Ritters example; who intentionally encouraged (often sought-out) unsophisticated first-time borrowers; who intentionally (often sought-out) current homeowners offering them, sometimes to the point of harassment, refinanced and/or line of credit loans…and other examples that could go non-and-on.”

“Yet what all the banks, mortgage brokers, REMICs, and trustees had to do from the very beginning was to act ethically and legally; They DID NOT, and, so, when the banksters have to reap the repercussions of having to “deal with the “Questionables-of-the-World,” don’t expect any deep empathy or sympathy from this foreclosure attorney who represents good, decent, and responsible homeowners and their families who are facing foreclosure because they experienced decreased income or even lost their jobs “at the hands of the banksters.”

Wow. There you have it. In the next blog I’ll try to make sense of this. Why was the whole damned thing based on fraud—something approximating a pyramid-Ponzi-Madoff scheme? That is really the question.

L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, NY. A student of Hyman P. Minsky, Wray has focused on monetary theory and policy, macroeconomics, financial instability, and employment policy. He has published widely in journals and is the author of Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability (Elgar, 1998) and Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies (Elgar 1990). Wray received a B.A. from the University of the Pacific and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Washington University in St. Louis. He has served as a visiting professor at the Universities of Rome and Bologna in Italy, the University of Paris, and UAM and UNAM in Mexico City.

California Cases – Is it important who forecloses?

19 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 10:49 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: California Cases – Is it important who forecloses?

Is it important who forecloses?

Carolyn Said

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Does slipshod paperwork provide legal grounds to overturn a foreclosure?

In Massachusetts, courts have said "yes" in two landmark cases upheld last year by the state’s highest tribunal, the Supreme Judicial Court. Judges in other states have ruled likewise.

But California courts have consistently refused to void foreclosures even when banks botched the process.

Now a case argued in an appeals court in San Francisco last week might get the California Supreme Court to weigh in. The case hinges on a single word in a civil statute written over a century ago.

If the court does follow Massachusetts’ lead – and that’s a big "if" – it could open the door to thousands of Californians who believe that their homes were illegally repossessed by parties with no right to do so.

Who owns the note?

Why does it matter who forecloses?

After all, banks argue, if homeowners clearly can’t make mortgage payments, they will lose the house no matter who owns the note.

But lawyers said it is crucial to avoid turning property rights into the Wild West – and to help some borrowers hang onto their houses.

"It’s important to the legal system that only the right parties can throw you out of your house, especially in states like California and Massachusetts where there is no judicial foreclosure," said Elizabeth Renuart, an assistant professor of law at Albany (N.Y.) Law School. "If homeowners who are in default know who owns their loan, they may be able to work out a loan modification with that lender so they can … stay in the house."

The robosigning scandal and February’s audit of San Francisco foreclosures by Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting bolstered arguments that resale of mortgages on Wall Street clouds the chain of title so no one can tell who really owns them, and that banks recklessly churned out foreclosure documents without verifying them. Many homeowners also assert that foreclosures by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System – the massive database banks use for rapid-fire buying and selling of mortgages – should be invalidated because MERS doesn’t record loan transfers.

Similar arguments convinced Massachusetts judges that lenders must prove they own the mortgage before they can foreclose, and that buyers cannot purchase improperly foreclosed properties and then try to clear the title. Those were the rulings in U.S. Bank vs. Ibanez and Bevilacqua vs. Rodriquez, the two cases upheld by the commonwealth’s high court last year.

Otherwise, any fraudster could record a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, file a suit to clear title, "hope that the true owners ignored the suit or … could not be readily located and (would thus) be defaulted," and get a court judgment saying they own the bridge, wrote a judge in the Massachusetts lower court decision.

"They basically said the emperor has no clothes, and if the emperor has no clothes, it cannot foreclose," said Renuart, who wrote a paper called "The Ibanez Time Bomb," looking at how that decision might apply in other states that, like Massachusetts, conduct foreclosures without court intervention. California is such a state.

A third case, Eaton vs. Fannie Mae, which the high court may rule on any day, looks at whether lenders must own both the note and the mortgage (the document that pledges real estate to secure that loan).

Massachusetts saw a slow-down in foreclosures during most of 2011 as banks fixed their paperwork – but for the past few months, foreclosures there have resumed at high rates, according to the Warren Group, a data service.

‘Not receptive’

California courts have taken an opposite tack.

"Judges here will say somebody’s owed a debt and this is the only creditor in this room asking to foreclose on the property, and we’ll give it to them," said attorney Tiffany Norman of TRN Law Associates, a San Francisco firm specializing in wrongful-foreclosure cases.

Kent Qian, staff attorney with the National Housing Law Project in San Francisco, said such cases often get thrown out before they even get a hearing.

"California courts have not been receptive to cases that allege the wrong party foreclosed, the party who fore-closed did not have authority to foreclose, there was fraud in different assignments (transfers of the mortgage) or (bank employees) didn’t have any idea what they were signing," he said.

Courts used a number of arguments to rebuff such cases.

In Gomes vs. Countrywide, "they said you cannot (sue) to contest whether the right person has initiated the foreclosure sale until after the foreclosure." Gomes, whose case also hinged on MERS’ right to foreclose, appealed to the California Supreme Court; in October, it declined to hear the appeal.

Another common judicial reasoning is "the tender argument." Courts often say a former homeowner "must tender the full amount of the loan to even assert their claim after the foreclosure sale," Qian said.

Obviously, a foreclosed-upon person could hardly muster up, say, $300,000 plus legal fees, just for the right to sue.

But even homeowners who make it past these barriers have found little judicial support.

"Courts essentially say, ‘What’s the harm, you owe the loan (and fell behind on payments), what’s the difference to you who does the foreclosing?’ " Qian said.

Most California lawsuits challenging foreclosures get dismissed before they even make it to a decision, he said.

Rescinding foreclosure

In the few cases that courts agree to let proceed, lenders generally offer a deal to the homeowner, who then drops the suit, so there is no legal precedent of them prevailing in court, Qian said. In such cases, banks may rescind the foreclosure sale and reinstate the loan under more-affordable terms.

One argument that has persuaded some California judges to let cases proceed is backdating of records – banks that sent a notice of default to kick off a foreclosure and only afterward filed backdated documents purporting to show they had the right to do so.

Deed of trust

One of the biggest barriers for homeowners in foreclosure lawsuits turns out to be the definition of "mortgage."

California Civil Code 2932.5, enacted in 1874, says lenders must record their ownership of a mortgage before foreclosing or selling a property.

That sounds crystal clear.

But nowadays, almost no home in California is secured with a mortgage. Instead the state uses a slightly different instrument called "deed of trust."

A recent case in California’s Second District Court of Appeal, Calvo vs. HSBC Bank, held that the Civil Code requiring lenders to record the transfer of a mortgage before they can foreclose does not apply to deeds of trust.

"Calvo is an unrealistic interpretation that views (home loans) through the outdated lens of over a century ago," said Elizabeth Letcher, director of litigation at Oakland’s Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, which helps struggling homeowners. "Now that home loans are secured with deeds of trust, (the Civil Code) should apply to those as well as to mortgages. Assignment of ownership interests – whether through mortgage or deeds of trust – should be recorded. There should be a public record of who has the power to sell property at a foreclosure sale."

Last week in San Francisco, the First District Court of Appeal heard arguments in Haynes vs. EMC Mortgage, in which the homeowner asserted EMC should have recorded the deed of trust under the Civil Code. The lower court ruled for the bank. But if the appeals court rules in Haynes’ favor, putting it in opposition to the Calvo decision, then the California Supreme Court may take up the issue to resolve the conflict.

There is also a legislative remedy on the horizon. The "Homeowner Bill of Rights" slate of laws proposed last month by Attorney General Kamala Harris and Democratic legislators would require lenders to record the deed of trust before foreclosing and to show proof that they have the right to foreclose. Similar bills failed to pass in recent years, but backers are hopeful that today’s climate will be more hospitable.

Bankruptcy courts

Meanwhile, there is one part of California’s legal landscape that is receptive to homeowners’ arguments that they deserve to know if a foreclosing party has the right to act.

"In bankruptcy courts, it’s almost a completely different playing field," Qian said. "Bankruptcy courts require lenders to show that they hold the note and are authorized to foreclose." Often the net result is just a few months’ pause before a foreclosure continues.

But sometimes the lenders can’t produce the right paperwork. "If the deed of trust came from a defunct lender like New Century, and if the lender didn’t already get an assignment from New Century, sometimes they can’t prove they have the authority to foreclose," Qian said. In such cases, the lender might offer the homeowner a settlement, such as more-affordable payments – or the court could approve a plan for the homeowner to pay the existing lender at a rate they can afford over five or so years, after which the loan would be discharged.

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. csaid

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/18/MNN01NKC57.DTL

Haynes v EMC.pdf
IN-RE-SALAZAR.pdf
Calvo v HSBC.pdf
Gomes v Countrywide.pdf

Seventh Circuit ignores majority of federal courts and grants borrowers private right of action under HAMP

19 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:56 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Seventh Circuit ignores majority of federal courts and grants borrowers private right of action under HAMP

I love the comment starting the article…any doubt which camp this author is in?

18 Mar

Mass Joinder Litigation

Archive for April, 2011
DEUTSCHE BANK, SECURITIZATION FRAUD AND FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., April 23, 2011

Download this Article as a PDF.

On April 13, 2011, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate released a report titled “Wall Street and The Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse.”

Section VI of the Report, pages 318 to 639, is titled “Investment Bank Abuses: Case Study of Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.” Part B of this section, pages 330 to 375, focuses on Deutsche Bank and is titled “Running the CDO Machine: Case Study of Deutsche Bank.”

The Deutsche Bank case study section is divided into the following areas:

(1) Subcommittee Investigation and Findings of Fact

(2) Deutsche Bank Background

(3) Deutsche Bank’s $5 Billion Short

(a) Lippmann’s Negative View of Mortgage Related Assets

(b) Building And Cashing In the $5 Billion Short

(4) The “CDO Machine” (5)…

View original post 1,797 more words

Banks OK foreclosure settlement that could give state homeowners $8.4 billion

18 Mar

By Kimberly Miller

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Posted: 9:49 p.m. Monday, March 12, 2012

Post a Comment
E-mail
Print
Share
Larger Type

Florida’s struggling homeowners are one step closer to getting a share of the state’s foreclosure settlement – valued at $8.4 billion – after formal bank agreements were filed in federal court Monday.

The agreements with the nation’s five largest lenders are the culmination of a nationwide attorneys general investigation that began in the fall of 2010 with allegations that forged documents were used to repossess people’s homes.

Included in the settlement are JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America and Ally Financial.

The agreements, which outline strict new standards for handling mortgages, still need a judge’s approval. But Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said the filing in the U.S. district court in Washington is a significant accomplishment.

The landmark agreement, considered the largest federal/state civil settlement ever obtained, was announced Feb. 14.

“Today’s filings pave the way for court orders that will provide substantial relief to Florida’s homeowners, hold banks accountable and reform the mortgage servicing industry,” Bondi said.

South Florida foreclosure defense attorneys were able to do only a cursory review of the hundreds of pages filed in court Monday, but at least two lawyers found positives for homeowners.

Royal Palm Beach foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice, whose firm was instrumental in discovering the robo-signing issues that ultimately led to the nationwide investigation, said there are now higher standards for banks to complete a foreclosure.

“The requirements for providing documentation of loan ownership and good-faith verification to foreclose will undoubtedly make robo-signing more difficult,” Ice said. “And in some cases, where the necessary documents and information is missing, it may create an insurmountable problem for the bank to foreclose quickly, or foreclose at all.”

Though the details of the settlements were not available until Monday’s court filings, critics have derided the agreements for releasing banks from state-sought civil and administrative claims, including claims for damages, fines, remedies and sanctions in relation to foreclosure wrongdoing.

But several other claims are not exempt from prosecution, according to Monday’s agreements. Those include criminal complaints, as well as claims against securities and securitization; claims against the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS; and claims of county or city records clerks.

Individual homeowners are still clear to file lawsuits against their lenders and generally will not be asked to waive that right if they receive aid from the settlement.

“I was most concerned that there would be some sneak releases for things that we think the banks should be held liable for,” said Roy Oppenheim of Oppenheim Law in Weston. “But they are not being released from suits against MERS or securitization.”

Oppenheim also noted that foreclosure processing companies, such as the now closed DocX, were not given “get-out-of-jail passes.”

Nationally, the $25 billion deal with the banks could provide up to $40 billion in cash, refinances and principal write-downs to homeowners.

Florida negotiated a special guarantee with Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America ensuring at least $4 billion will be awarded in the form of principal reductions, loan modifications and refinances for underwater borrowers.

Florida’s haul includes a $334 million payment to the state, 10 percent of which is considered a penalty. The attorney general has discretion on how to use the remainder, but it generally must go to foreclosure-rescue programs or fraud investigations.

About $171 million will be cash payments to Florida borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure between 2008 and 2011 and were victims of servicer abuse. An additional $309 million will refinance underwater borrowers current on their loans.

Ice said he is concerned about the enforcement provisions in the settlements, which he described as an “agreement to agree.”

“We don’t want this to go the way of the Florida Supreme Court’s requirement that banks verify their pleadings,” Ice said. “All that accomplished was that the banks began robo-verifying the complaints.”

For more information

Go to nationalforeclosure

settlement.com

You also can contact banks directly :

Bank of America: (877) 488-7814

Citigroup: (866) 272-4749

Chase: (866) 372-6901

Ally/ (800) 766-4622

Wells Fargo: (800) 288-3212

Get ready to be sick – transcript showing the real stripes of a bankster’s judge – Overruling objections regardless…

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:36 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Get ready to be sick – transcript showing the real stripes of a bankster’s judge – Overruling objections regardless…

A Most Disappointing Foreclosure Trial Transcript, With A Devastating Conclusion…..

March 14th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

The attached trial transcript reflects a devastating loss to me personally. It also reflects real areas of conflict within the existing body of appellate law. The next waves of this war are now starting to form across the horizon. We’ve largely moved past Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment issues. We’ve moved through discovery and other substantive law. Now the next phase is trials. We should all be prepared for trials in every single case. And then appeals when appropriate.

These are indeed unsettling times and quite frankly our trial courts have a nearly impossible burden placed upon them. It’s a burden placed upon them that every single taxpayer and homeowner must bear. All the while, the banks that caused all this chaos and conflict wallow in hundreds of billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. One of the most important take aways I get from this transcript is the time and attention devoted by the court to this trial. I don’t like the outcome here, but I have profound respect for a court that holds a foreclosure trial to the same standard as all other important cases.

I tried desperately to articulate the real and substantive problems that course throughout our entire legal, financial and government system….any old plaintiff showing up in court can get a foreclosure judgment. …it’s truly a disturbing state of law….

And now, read my pain….

125519-HEARING-021512.mini_.pdf

Chase Forged Note & Deed of Trust

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:52 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Chase Forged My Note & Deed of Trust

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:42 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Chase Forged My Note & Deed of Trust

Help spread the word. Chase is clearly Photoshopping the signatures on the notes and deeds/mortgages. You can discover this evidence with colored copies of these documents.

Declaration of Evidence – Expert Declaration of Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel03142012_0000.pdf

Palm Beach Gardens homeowner gets $18 million in foreclosure settlement – persistence and skill pays off!

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:15 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Palm Beach Gardens homeowner gets $18 million in foreclosure settlement – persistence and skill pays off!

Palm Beach Gardens homeowner gets $18 million in foreclosure settlement

by Kim Miller

 

Lynn Szymoniak

Palm Beach Gardens homeowner and foreclosure fighter Lynn Szymoniak is slated to get $18 million from the nationwide settlement with the country’s five largest banks that was filed in federal court Monday.

Szymoniak, who was featured on the CBS news show 60 Minutes last year for the work she did uncovering the robo-signing scandal, said this morning that her gain from the settlement seems “surreal.”

“I always tend to discount everything until it’s signed,” she said. “I knew it was part of the settlement in February, but not how much.”

Szymoniak’s settlement is part of a larger $95 million agreement reached with the banks and Bill Nettles, the U.S. District Attorney of South Carolina. That agreement is written into the $25 billion nationwide settlement between 40 state attorneys general and Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Ally Financial, Wells Fargo and Citigroup.

South Carolina began investigating allegations in the spring of 2010 that banks were involved in a nationwide practice of failing to obtain required mortgage assignments. The lack of appropriate assignments resulted in servicing misconduct and using false assignments to submit federal housing administration mortgage insurance claims, according to a press release.

The False Claims Act allows the government to bring actions against groups that knowingly use false documents to obtain government money or to conceal an obligation to pay money.

The lawsuit was initially filed by Szymnoniak under a whistleblower provision in the False Claims Act.

Under the act, the whistleblower is entitled to a share of the government’s recovery.

“By this agreement we are making an important first step to hold mortgage servicers accountable for fraudulent and abusive practices, not only in South Carolina but nationwide,” said Nettles. “It also demonstrates the role that whistleblowers can play in working with the government to return dollars to the federal treasury and to expose wrongdoing.”

  • Mortgage Assignments As Evidence of Fraud (April, 2010), Fraud Digest.
  • An Officer of Too Many Banks (January, 2010), Fraud Digest.
  • Compare These Signatures (January, 2010), Fraud Digest.
  • Too Many Jobs (January, 2010), Fraud Digest.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Foreclosure Document Mills (January, 2010), Fraud Digest.

Foreclosure Activity for Judicial vs. Non-Judicial States Flip-Flopped

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:47 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Foreclosure Activity for Judicial vs. Non-Judicial States Flip-Flopped

Foreclosure Activity for Judicial vs. Non-Judicial States Flip-Flopped

By: Esther Cho 03/14/2012

Depending on whether the data was based on a judicial or non-judicial state, foreclosure activity told different stories in RealtyTrac’s Foreclosure Market Report released today for February 2012.

When clumping states together based on foreclosure processes, February foreclosure activity in the 26 judicial states increased 24 percent from February 2011 and 2 percent from the previous month of January. For the 24 non-judicial states, the numbers moved in near opposite directions, with foreclosure activity decreased to 23 percent from February 2011 and down 5 percent from January, according to a RealtyTrac release.

Overall, foreclosure filings — default notices, scheduled auctions, and bank repossessions — were reported on 206,900 properties in February, down 2 percent from the previous month and 8 percent a year ago from February 2012, which is the lowest decrease since October 2010, according to RealtyTrac.

“The foreclosure and mortgage settlement filed in court earlier this week will help pave the way to a properly functioning foreclosure process by providing a clear roadmap for necessary foreclosures,” said Brandon Moore, CEO of RealtyTrac. “That should result in more states posting annual increases in the coming months. Not surprisingly, many of the biggest annual increases in February were in states with the more bureaucratic judicial foreclosure process, which resulted in a larger backlog of foreclosures built up over the last 18 months in those states.”

For metro areas, 10 of the nation’s largest 20 reported year-over-year increases in foreclosure activity in February, with Florida cities Tampa (+64 percent) and Miami (+53 percent) posting the highest increases.

Most of the metro areas with decreases were in the West, led by Seattle (-59 percent) and Phoenix (-43 percent), which corresponds to a recent ForeclosureRadar report showing decreases in foreclosure filings in February for most West coast states.

The metro areas with the highest foreclosure rates were Riverside-San Bernardino in California (one in 166 housing units), Atlanta (one in 244), Phoenix (one in 259), Miami (one in 264) and Chicago (one in 302).

The metro areas with the highest number of foreclosure filings in February 2012 were Los Angeles (12,731), Chicago (12,587), Miami (9,333), Riverside-San Bernardino (9,057), and Atlanta (8,859).

While Nevada and California reached new lows in foreclosure activity and saw decreases in February, the two states still had the highest foreclosure rates despite signs of improvement. One in every 278 Nevada housing units had a foreclosure filing during the month, which is twice the national average, and one in every 283 housing units had a foreclosure filing in California.

With one in every 312 Arizona housing units with a foreclosure filing during the month, the state stood at number three.

Default notices were filed on 58,886 U.S. properties in February, up 1 percent from the previous month but still down 7 percent a year ago. Foreclosure auctions were scheduled on 84,180 homes down 2 percent from January and down 13 percent. REO properties totaled 63,834, a 4 percent decrease from January and down 1 percent from February 2011.

States with the greatest increase on a year-over-year basis for default notices were Hawaii (321 percent increase), Maryland (+157 percent), Connecticut (+64 percent), South Carolina (+58 percent), and Indiana (+37 percent).

Default notices were down on a year-over-year basis in several states including Nevada (-89 percent), Michigan (-72 percent), New York (-44 percent), Iowa (-28 percent), and Kentucky (-25 percent).

For Nevada, the major decrease in default notices has been credited to recent state legislation requiring lenders to file an extra affidavit before initiating the foreclosure process.
States with the greatest increase on a year-over-year basis for scheduled auctions were Kentucky (+190 percent), Illinois (+170 percent), Iowa (+98 percent), Pennsylvania (+95 percent), and Indiana (+92 percent).

REO activity increased at least 20 percent on a year-over-year basis in 17 states, including Massachusetts (+114 percent), North Carolina (+95 percent), Florida (+90 percent), South Carolina (+87 percent), and Georgia (+76 percent).

©2012 DS News. All Rights Reserved.

SECURITIZED DISTRUST

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:00 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: SECURITIZED DISTRUST

SECURITIZED DISTRUST

Posted on March 15, 2012

by Gary Victor Dubin, Esq. Honolulu, Hawaii

Gary Victor Dubin is a dynamite Honolulu foreclosure defense attorney with over 40 wins by the DUBIN LAW FIRM in Hawaii foreclosure courts for his clients just in the last year. This is a stunning success given the current judicial climate in Hawaii, not to mention the complexity of securitization, the hidden frauds…and of course, card games and golfing with banksters doesn’t help either.

Dubin’s essay “Securitized Distrust” is a culmination of insight with over 20+ years of first hand litigation and this leads right into our latest discovery of WaMu multiple trust loan assignments. Shuffling or fraud… or both?

It’s no wonder that the Wall Street MBS scheme collapsed. Last night, together with Lisa Epstein, we ran a random audit on WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Mortgage Loan Trusts. One loan was found in 6 different trusts, another loan was found in FIVE trusts’ original SEC loan level data, 39 were listed in 3 trusts, and 503 were listed in two separate trusts.

The winner so far is a NEW YORK condo, loan number WaMu loan # 714934858, appeared in 6 DIFFERENT trusts from May through November 2006…

Check your winning WaMu lottery loan numbers folks and find a good foreclosure defense attorney that understands securitization – you may have a free house… or a severely clouded title. And if you are an investor – you may have hit pay dirt.
(More WaMu at the bottom)

SECURITIZED DISTRUST
By Gary Victor Dubin

Securitized trusts — that is, the bundling and selling of shares therein to investors via a business merger between lenders and wall street (mortgage backed securities or MBS) — is relatively new, not even understood by many lawyers today and very few if fully any Hawaii judges, and certainly not by me until only a few years ago, and I am still learning day by day.

In recent years, my law firm has handled dozens of securitized trust foreclosure defense cases and one defense of an SEC civil prosecution against broker-sellers of such MBS shares. The fraud throughout the secondary mortgage market has been pervasive:

1. Promissory notes intended for securitized trusts based on my experience were either intentionally never deposited into the securitized trust in the first place on purpose with full knowledge by everyone involved or were deposited in the trusts only as copies.

2. Based on the testimony of whistleblowers and forthright bank executives, lenders intentionally destroyed most of their original notes and instead before doing so digitized them, supposedly for convenience — which of course destroyed their status as negotiable instruments, leaving only copies somewhere, and often not with the Trustee.

3. At first, it appeared that that was just sloppiness, but subsequently in our cases we have discovered that it appears to have been common practice intentionally not to deposit the notes (or the mortgages) in the securitized trusts, but to withhold them and unlawfully use them on the side as collateral to support loans or credit from Federal Home Loan Bank Boards, a practice that apparently mushroomed as lenders found themselves in financial trouble and in need of capital.

4. Documented evidence has recently just been brought to my attention that many notes and mortgages were even put simultaneously into two or three or perhaps even more separate securitized trusts, unknown of course to individual investors who thought that they had sole security for their investments, unknown to insurance companies like AIG that insured the MBS based on certified loan underwriting guidelines that they were unaware were being ignored and intentionally compromised by false appraisals and false loan applications.

5. All of this recently surfacing has of course started to generate a massive amount of litigation between lenders and investors and mortgagors and insurers and title companies, in which inevitably the question of fraudulent notes and fraudulent mortgages as well as fraudulent mortgage assignments has occasionally arisen. Just this week I had an incredible hearing before Judge Ayabe in one such case involving a claimed lost mortgage assignment and the submission in court of a false note to get around the absence of the mortgage assignment.

6. All of this of course is pregnant with fraud and criminality, particularly against MBS investors. Securitized trusts also have special IRS preferential status, called REMIC, able to pass through income to investors and avoid taxation so long as the deposit of the note and mortgage occur at the time of the formation of the securitized trust. Having violated REMIC requirements which could cost securitized trusts each millions, the securitized trusts have been a ticking IRS time bomb.

7. As a result, as all of this began to surface a year or so ago, as a corollary to the so-called “too big to fail” hobgoblin, the Obama Administration and regulatory agencies began to seek frankly to cover things up, recently convincing the AGs to settle with the big five banks which are either securitized trust loan servicers or Trustees themselves and to grant them immunity, especially I understand from IRS violations.

8. The effect on borrowers has been dramatic. As foreclosures increased, the securitized trusts have had a huge problem, how to foreclose in court (or nonjudicial proceedings) without the notes or even the mortgages — so they began to falsify promissory notes when needed (we have even found evidence that some lenders have been photo-shopping notes), to create phony allonges and phony bearer notes, and to submit in court no less fraudulently notarized and fraudulently signed mortgage assignments to the securitized trusts — a practice now having become famously known as “robo-signing.”

9. At first, the foreclosing mortgagees got away with it as judges and attorneys were virtually unanimously unaware of what was going on, until a few relentless attorneys and investigators on the Mainland exposed the fraud — one recently getting I understand $18,000,000 from the recent AG settlement for her False Claims Act whistle-blowing!

10. For some time my law firm has been arguing such issues in defense of borrowers — particularly as standing issues — but with little success, until recently, as more and more Hawaii judges are finally beginning to understand.

11. Very rarely in our cases is the issue one of lost notes or lost mortgages, but usually phony note endorsements or phony allonges or phony mortgage assignments — or all three.

12. Mortgages of course in Hawaii are all recorded at the State Bureau of Conveyances, but as a result mainly due to the use by securitized trusts of the private Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), mortgage assignments have not been contemporaneously recorded — which has allowed the illicit trafficking in mortgage interests — which has generated still additional legal issues, such as whether the ownership of the promissory note can be separated from the ownership of the related mortgage, an issue now before several state high courts on the Mainland.

The above flood of new legal issues is just starting to hit Hawaii appellate courts, as my law firm has several related cases presently working their way through our appellate system, as the largest financial scandal in American history plays out.

Unlike the recent AG settlement, I prefer the approach that enforces traditional real property and UCC negotiable instruments laws, like the New York and New Jersey courts are now doing, and let the chips fall where they may — directly on top of the heads of those who violated the law — by refusing to reward fraud.

Gary Victor Dubin 3/14/12

Dubin Law Offices
Harbor Court, Suite 3100
55 Merchant Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
gdubin

(808) 537-2300 (office)
(808) 523-7733 (facsimile)

More here: http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/securitized-distrust/#more-1834

CA Superior Court: 90-Day Notice Required to Evict for Non-Payment of Rent After Foreclosure

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: CA Superior Court: 90-Day Notice Required to Evict for Non-Payment of Rent After Foreclosure

Posted by April Charney:

The Court found that the bank must serve bona fide tenants a 90-day notice under the PTFA, even if the eviction is based on non-payment of rent (which required only a 3-day notice under state law). The ruling follows on the heels of a Massachusetts decision with similar reasoning, FNMA v. Vidal.

The order and the Daily Journal article on the decision are attached.

compliments of :

National Housing Law Project

703 Market Street Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94103

415-546-7000 x. 3112

415-546-7007 (fax)

stanko.order.030711.pdf
Stanko Rare eviction ruling gains attention.pdf

Max Gardner’s Newsletter – MERS in State and Federal Courts

18 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:15 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Max Gardner’s Newsletter – MERS in State and Federal Courts

MERS in State and Federal Courts

By Tiffany Sanders on March 15, 2012

In the last newsletter, we addressed general standing issues in bankruptcy and other federal courts. Here’s the next installment from the bibliography compiled for the Boot Camp by Robin Miller. One area in which standing issues regularly take center stage (or should) is in foreclosure actions involving MERS. Many state and federal courts have issued opinions regarding the rights and authority of MERS and the organization’s standing to bring foreclosure actions.

MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90, 861 N.E.2d 81, 828 N.Y.S.2d 266 (N.Y. 2006): Precise question was whether Suffolk County Clerk must record mortgages and assignments of mortgages which name MERS. The final paragraphs of opinion note the confusion created for homeowners, potential that errors are hidden, even talks about the problem created by loss of revenue. Though creditors cite this case as some sort of approval of MERS, a footnote specifically says that the following questions are left for another day: the underlying validity of the MERS mortgage instrument, whether its failure to transfer beneficial interest renders it a nullity under real property law, whether it violates the prohibition against separating the note from the mortgage, and whether MERS has standing to foreclose.

Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 (2nd Dept. June 7, 2011): MERS’s authority as “nominee” was limited to only those powers that were specifically conferred to it and authorized by the lender; hence, although the consolidation agreement gave MERS the right to assign the mortgages themselves, it did not specifically give MERS the right to assign the underlying notes, and the assignment of the notes was thus beyond MERS’s authority as nominee or agent of the lender.

Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Pietranico, 33 Misc.3d 528, 928 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Sup., July 27, 2011): MERS, as nominee, had authority to assign mortgage.

In re Agard, 444 B.R. 231 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011): A written assignment by MERS of the mortgage to U.S. Bank was not sufficient to establish an effective assignment of the note to U.S. Bank, as the language in the assignment was vague and insufficient to prove an intent to assign the note, and, in any event, MERS was not a party to the note, and the record was barren of any representation that MERS had any authority to take any action with respect to the note.

Bank of New York v. Alderazi, 31 Misc.3d 1209(A), 929 N.Y.S.2d 198 (N.Y. Sup., April 11, 2011) (unreported table opinion; text found at 2011 WL 1364466): While the mortgage granted some rights to MERS, it did not grant MERS the specific right to assign the mortgage.

In re Freeman, 446 B.R. 625 (Bankr. S.D.Ga., Feb. 10, 2010): MERS, which was the grantee, as nominee for the lender, under the security deed given by the debtor, had standing, as the security deed gave MERS the right to foreclose on the debtor’s property, that right was impaired by the automatic stay, and relief from the stay would redress that injury.

In re Fontes, Case No. 10-1345 (9th Cir. B.A.P., April 22, 2011): While MERS was named as the beneficiary of the deed of trust on the Chapter 13 debtors’ property, as the nominee of the lender, MERS did not have the authority to transfer the debtors’ promissory note, where there was no evidence that MERS had any interest in the note, and the deed of trust, although giving MERS the authority to assign the deed of trust, did not mention the note.

In re Martinez, 2011 WL 996705 (Bankr. D. Wyo., March 16, 2011): MERS, which assigned the mortgage from the original lender to Ocwen, had the authority to do so, as in the mortgage MERS is designated as the nominee of the lender with authority to “take any action required of Lender”.

In re Thomas, 2011 WL 576830 (Bankr. D.Mass., Feb. 9, 2011): The creditor could not rely on the recorded assignment of the debtor’s mortgage from MERS to the creditor as evidence that the note was transferred to the creditor; while the assignment purported to assign both the mortgage and the note, MERS, which is a registry system that tracks the beneficial ownership and servicing of mortgages, was never the holder of the note, and therefore lacked the right to assign it.

In re Koontz, 2010 WL 5625883 (Bankr. N.D.Ind., Sept. 30, 2010): T­­he purported mortgage creditor failed to establish the chain of title for its proof of claim; while the debtors’ mortgage had been assigned to the creditor by MERS, as the nominee of the original lender, MERS admitted that the individual who executed the assignment on behalf of MERS was not a MERS employee.

In re Tucker, 441 B.R. 638 (Bankr. W.D. Mo., Sept. 20, 2010): The holder of the Chapter 7 debtors’ mortgage note was entitled to seek relief from stay, although the note holder was not also, on the petition date, the owner of the deed of trust on the debtors’ property, as (1) the note holder was a member of the MERS system, (2) MERS was the beneficiary under the deed of trust as nominee for the note holder, and (3) all parties to whom the note had been transferred in the chain from the original lender to the current note holder had been members of the MERS system.

In re Box, 2010 WL 2228289 (Bankr. W.D. Mo., June 3, 2010): A purported transfer of a note to a creditor by MERS was ineffective in the absence of evidence that MERS possessed the authority to transfer the note.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Medina, 2009 WL 4823387 (D. Nev., Dec. 4, 2009): MERS, which provided no evidence that it was the agent or nominee for the current owner of the beneficial interest in the note, did not establish that it was a real party in interest, as required under Bankruptcy Rule 7017.

In re Sheridan, 2009 WL 631355 (Bankr. D. Idaho, March 12, 2009): Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., which filed a motion for relief from stay “as nominee HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Indenture Trustee of the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-3,” did not establish its standing to prosecute such a motion, even assuming that MERS as a “nominee” had sufficient rights and ability as an agent to advance its principal’s stay relief request.

Keep watching the newsletter for additional information and case citations relating to more specific aspects of standing in mortgage foreclosure cases.

16 Mar

Mass Joinder Litigation

925-957-9797

ISSUE:

Many Californians in default on their mortgage and facing foreclosure have filed quiet title and wrongful foreclosure actions. What is a quiet title action against a lender, and are plaintiffs successful in California?

BRIEF ANSWER:                                                                                                         

            A quiet title action in California to determine the owner of property does not generally allow a mortgage borrower in default on their payments to claim title to the land free of liens. However, the action when combined with a wrongful foreclosure claim is often successful in extending the amount of time a defaulted borrower can remain in the house. While in essence, this is simply prolonging the inevitable, it can give a borrower a temporary feeling of control over their own destiny.

DISCUSSION:

Quiet Title Actions as a Defense to Foreclosure

A cause of action to quiet title seeks to determine adverse claims to real or personal property. (Cal. Code Civ…

View original post 1,086 more words

16 Mar

Mass Joinder Litigation

Other Jurisdictions

Contrary to California’s ruling in Gomes, a MERS has come under fire in Utah. In Harvey v. Garbett Mortgage, Utah 3rd Dist. Case No. 100907587 (2010) (unpublished) (Herinafter Harvey),  quiet title action resulted in a deed clear of any liens because the trustee, the legal title holder, did not have any idea who the beneficiary was, did not have physical possession of the mortgage note, and did not know whether a split of the note and trust deed occurred. The plaintiff quickly sold the property after the ruling, and thus has no interest in the land. The loan is now unsecured, and the plaintiff is still liable to the lender to pay the debt. An interesting procedural note about the Harvey case is that the plaintiff did not name MERS as a defendant in this case, even though MERS was the nominal…

View original post 319 more words

Wrongful Foreclosure Action and Claim against Your Bank – Your Primary Family Asset

15 Mar

From 2008 to the present (about 3-1/4 years), there have been about 10,000,000 foreclosures, many or most of which have been of questionable legality, judging from what has been appearing almost daily in the main media during the past 12-18 months (e.g., falsified foreclosure documents including affidavits, failure to follow state foreclosure laws (such as by failing to have completed assignments of interest), and lack of ownership and possession of the original “wet-ink” Note).

If you were the owner of one of the 10,000,000 properties foreclosed by the lender during this period, you probably have a meritorious claim for wrongful foreclosure and should seriously consider commencing a wrongful foreclosure action against the lender. The value of your claim could well exceed all of the other assets owned by you or your family.

A wrongful foreclosure action should not be expensive, and has the advantage that the bank cannot retaliate by foreclosing on your property. It has already done that, and probably wrongfully. There is also the possibility that, since about half of the foreclosed properties are still under control of the foreclosing bank, you could obtain recovery of your property as well as some damages.

An wrongful foreclosure action can be commenced in any State in the United States for an initial legal fee of about $5,000 to $6,000, plus court filing fees (about $300) and fees for service of process (about $200).

The damages for wrongful foreclosure, particuarly a wilful (or knowingly) wrongful foreclosure can be quite substantial, including the loss in value of your property when it was sold at a distressed price, the costs to you of having a poor credit rating because of the foreclosure, the costs of moving elsewhere, the costs and loss involved in changing schools and neighborhood, and various other costs, including consequential damages which the bank could have foreseen when it wrongfully foreclosed.

But the most important recovery could be punitive damages, which is now limited by the U.S. Supreme Court to nine times (“single digit”) the amount of the actual damages you prove at trial. Accordingly, if you can show $200,000 in actual damages, you would be entitled to a maximum amount of punitive damages equal to $1,800,000 (or 9 times $200,000).

The action would be triable to a jury, most of whom are quite familiar with your problem, and would probably be receptive to giving you a substantial recovery.

The expenditure of $5,500 to $6,500 to obtain the bank’s reaction to your complaint (which hopefully will be to try to settle the action, a response to be expected in proportion to the merits of your claim of wrongful foreclosure) is a small amount in comparison to the probable recovery, and seems to be a no brainer type of decision for most persons to make, who have suffered from wrongful foreclosure.

The key things to consider when evaluating whether you should do this are:

  • The competence of your counsel
  • The merits of your wrongful foreclosure claims against the bank
  • Whether you can afford to risk the cost needed to bring the wrongful foreclosure action against the lender

You should look at my 10-minute YouTube video # 42 (created 11/17/10) entitled Homeowners Can Sue Banks to Cancel Mortgage or for Wrongful or Fraudulent Foreclosure and Punitive Damages. The link is:

You should talk with an attorney experienced in defending foreclosures to have him/her explain to you, after hearing the facts from you, what claims you have against the lender, and the value of those claims. Also, you should discuss what happens if the bank refuses to settle or to enter into a reasonable settlement agreement with you after the suit has been commenced.

I know that lawsuits are something that most reasonable people would like to avoid, but in order for you to obtain any recovery for the wrongful taking of your property, you need to file a wrongful foreclosure action against the lender, and spell out the reasons why you are entitled to recovery, for both the judge as well as the lender to read. If your case is meritorious, you have good reason to believe that the bank will try to settle the case, to reduce its costs, liability and adverse publicity, and to settle for less than it might otherwise have to pay after a trial.

If you would like to discuss your own wrongful foreclosure situation with me – as a FREE consultation – please give me a call, to

212-307-4444

or send me an email to carlpers2@gmail.com

This could be the way for you to recover the substantial loss you have probably incurred through the foreclosure, assuming it was wrongful. Please call me to help you determine whether the foreclosure was wrongful or not, and what you can do if the foreclosure was in fact wrongful (i.e., illegal).

Carl E. Person, attorney

P.S. I’m able to represent you in any State of the U.S. by use of “local counsel”. I should be able to locate affordable local counsel in any State, subject to your approval.

New York Statute of Limitations – 6 Years

An appropriate action for wrongful foreclosure will have more than one claim. For example, claims for breach of contract, fraud, mistake, negligence and unjust enrichment will probably be included, as well as other claims. Each of these claims has a statute of limitations, meaning that the claim cannot be brought after expiration of the statute of limitations for such claim. In New York, many of the claims seems to be governed by New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for various types of actions. Here is the statute, NY CPLR Section 213:

§ 213. Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise provided for; on contract; on sealed instrument; on bond or note, and mortgage upon real property; by state based on misappropriation of public property; based on mistake; by corporation against director, officer or stockholder; based on fraud

The following actions must be commenced within six years:

1. an action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law;

2. an action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or implied, except as provided in section two hundred thirteen-a of this article or article 2 of the uniform commercial code or article 36-B of the general business law;

3. an action upon a sealed instrument;

4. an action upon a bond or note, the payment of which is secured by a mortgage upon real property, or upon a bond or note and mortgage so secured, or upon a mortgage of real property, or any interest therein;

5. an action by the state based upon the spoliation or other misappropriation of public property; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from discovery by the state of the facts relied upon;

6. an action based upon mistake;

7. an action by or on behalf of a corporation against a present or former director, officer or stockholder for an accounting, or to procure a judgment on the ground of fraud, or to enforce a liability, penalty or forfeiture, or to recover damages for waste or for an injury to property or for an accounting in conjunction therewith.

8. an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

There may be a period as short as one year as to some of the claims, such as in California. The first thing you should discuss with your attorney is the period of time in which your various claims must be brought in a lawsuit against the bank. The primary claim is for breach of contract, as your starting point.

In California, the tort of wrongful foreclosure requires: (1) a legally owed duty to the Plaintiff by the foreclosing party (2) a breach of that duty (3) a causal connection between the breach of that duty and the injury the Plaintiff sustained, and (4) damages. California courts have further clarified this cause of action by stating: “We are inclined however, to believe that with respect to real property the Murphy case was articulating a rule that has been applied in other jurisdictions. That rule is that a trustee or mortgagee may be liable to the trustor or mortgagor for damages sustained where there has been an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed of trust. Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7, 89 Cal. Rptr. 323, 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)

The court in Munger appears to be saying that if the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive then that foreclosure was wrongful and the party foreclosed on may be entitled to damages. According to California statutory and case law several types of damages are available to victims of wrongful foreclosures.

First, damages are measured by the value of the property at the time of the sale in excess of the mortgage lien against the property (i.e the equity in the property). Second, damages are available in the amount that is sufficient to compensate for all detriment proximately caused by the wrongful conduct. California Civil Code Section 3333. Third, the borrower may be able to obtain damages for emotional distress in a wrongful foreclosure action and if the borrower can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the servicer/trustee was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice punitive damages may be awarded. Where there is a wrongful foreclosure, the borrower may seek punitive damages. In Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 345 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 554] the Court in acknowledging the right to seek punitive damages said:

“The jury concluded that the nonjudicial foreclosures instituted by the Kachlons were wrongful, and that in pursuing the foreclosure proceedings Mordechai acted “intentionally, fraudulently and in conscious and callous disregard for the rights of the Markowitzes.” These findings are tantamount to the finding of malice….” (emphasis added).

As such, it is clear in California, if the borrower can prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the servicer or trustee was guilty of fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct, punitive damages may be awarded.


Mortgage Settlement or Mortgage Shakedown?

14 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:30 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Mortgage Settlement or Mortgage Shakedown?

WSJ article by David Skeel attached. Comments of note:

“The biggest loser is the rule of law.”

Government plaintiffs allege the “banks” “robo-signed” by executives who never checked document details; also “added unnecessary fees such as overpriced insurance.”

Realize, this is NOT related to litigation but rather amounts to LEGISLATION essentially ruling out the “chief objectives of the judicial process [which] are in fact finding and redress.”

As indicated in the article and I agree, the AGs have NOT done any meaningful investigations into these issues. Phil Ting in San Francisco; Jeff Thigpen in North Carolina and John O’Brien as “merely” registrars of deeds found out more on their own than 49 State Attorneys General did in 18 months of supposed investigation and still don’t seem to not know the difference between a servicer and real party in interest.

This whole settlement appears to be yet another entitlement and “stimulus” without having to go to Congress with little money going to homeowners and large sums potentially going to the States themselves. A question seldom asked…where is the money coming from?

I still contend it is a buy-your-way-out-of-jail-free card.

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Defending or Litigating Foreclosure?
Click Here For More Information

Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst. Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.

WSJ 2-21-12 A.pdf

New post We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

14 Mar

From: Timothymccandless’s Weblog [mailto:donotreply@wordpress.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:18 PM
To: tim@prodefenders.com
Subject: [New post] We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

New post on Timothymccandless’s Weblog

blavatar-default.png
ccea50172ca3053b89de5dca1ec05849?s=50&d=identicon&r=G

We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

by timothymccandless

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:38 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

From 4closurefraud:

Exclusive Smoking Gun | The Sophisticated and The Scammed IV – It Appears We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

So last night we got word from Virginia Parsons, our friend over at www.deadlyclear.com. She discovered a WAMU loan in a WAMU trust that was ALSO in TWO other WAMU trusts.

Yes, this appears to be a TRIPLE PLEDGED loan.

Well, as we know from experience in the fraudclosure underworld, that if you find an anomaly it usually is not an anomaly.

So what did Lisa decide to do? Well, look for more silly.

Guess what…

Here is what she found after she dumped the tr…

From Lisa

I looked at the SEC filed loan level data for all three trusts and ran a comparison for all the loan numbers that were listed in the 2006 SEC files.

I found a total of 44 loans (including Ginny’s triple pledged loan) and here are the results.

Each of these loans is in two (one is in three) of the following trusts:

WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR11

WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR13

WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR15

Loan Number WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR
3010064859 11 15
3010002701 11 15
714934858 11 13 15
3010073819 11 13
3010112153 11 13
3010166548 15 13
3010238461 11 13
3010272585 15 13
3010294712 15 13
3010466831 11 13
3010555286 15 13
3010566010 15 13
3010584575 15 13
3010589509 15 13
3010631244 11 13
3010943060 15 13
3010944548 15 13
3011042730 15 13
3062099423 15 13
3062174630 11 13
3062175199 11 13
3062215581 11 13
3062251925 11 13
3062342641 11 13
3062427889 11 13
3062431626 15 13
3062544402 11 13
3062638584 11 13
3062660091 11 13
3062663459 11 13
3062663459 15 13
3062717586 11 13
3062721349 15 13
3062758135 15 13
3062759299 15 13
3062810019 11 15
3062917996 11 13
3062954270 11 15
3063020881 11 13
3063123990 11 13
3063140127 15 13
3063180966 15 13
3063191302 15 13
3063197093 11 13

She ONLY compared these three trusts, for all we know these loans could be in other trusts also.

Is this the final smoking gun we need? How many loans were multiple pledged into numerous trusts?

Can they allow the foreclosure to continue on loans that have been sold multiple times?

So many questions.

More to come as we dig into it.

Reuters is already all over it for us.

timothymccandless | March 13, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Categories: I Have a Plan | URL: http://wp.me/pjHsx-157

Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/we-now-have-proof-that-mortgage-loans-were-pledged-to-multiple-trusts/

Thanks for flying with wp-footericon.pngWordPress.com

b.gif?host=wordpress.com&blog=4695293&post=4161&subd=timothymccandless&ref=&email=1&email_o=wpcom

David Ambrose on James v. Recontrust

14 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:29 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: David Ambrose on James v. Recontrust

Attached is the opinion which came down today of US District Court Judge Michael H. Simon. This is a significant opinion, and one which will likely have a substantial impact on not only pending nonjudicial foreclosures in Oregon, but those which have already occurred, involving MERS as the nominee for the lender on the trust deed. Of most import, the ruling holds:

1. Only the note holder may be a beneficiary under a trust deed under Oregon law;

2. Therefore, whether the parties have agreed to designate MERS as the beneficiary or not, is irrelevant, as Oregon law is controlling and paramount, and because MERS is not the note holder, MERS is not the beneficiary. While this opinion is of course specific to Oregon’s laws, it does persuasively dispel the argument that because the parties designated MERS as the beneficiary, that should be controlling (and as an aside, like any home owner signing a trust deed with MERS as the designated nominee had any idea what that really meant?);

3. In non-legalese, the law and custom argument made by MERS (who at MERS law firm actually dreamed up this language?) is simply bogus. The opinion includes a fascinating, and somewhat humorous, discussion of this provision in a MERS trust deed and the circularity of the MERS argument on this point.

4. Under Oregon law, when the ownership of the note is transferred, there is a corresponding transfer of the beneficiary’s interest under the trust deed, and under Oregon law, all such transfers must be recorded in order for the remedy of nonjudicial foreclosure to be available. Absent such recorded assignments, there can be a judicial foreclosure, but not a nonjudicial foreclosure. And once you get into court, all of a sudden the "who owns the note" argument is no longer an irrelevant inquiry (standing, real party in interest, etc.).

Why the potential impact on completed nonjudicial foreclosures? Because if the trustee had no authority to conduct the sale, the sale is arguably void (not just voidable) (and there are already Oregon Circuit Court cases holding to this effect), and taking a cue from rulings in Massachusetts, and other states, this means that a buyer at a foreclosure sale, or a later buyer of the property from the foreclosing lender who acquired title at the foreclosure sale, may be set aside, and the bona fide purchaser doctrine will be unavailable. I imagine our title insurers are going to be having heart palpitations about this one.

Regards,

David Ambrose

drambrose

James v. Recontrust et al – Order.pdf

Federal Reserve Board released action plans for supervised correction of deficiencies in loan servicing and foreclosure.

14 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:33 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Federal Reserve Board released action plans for supervised correction of deficiencies in loan servicing and foreclosure.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20120227a.htm

Release Date: February 27, 2012

For immediate release

The Federal Reserve Board on Monday released action plans for supervised financial institutions to correct deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. It also released engagement letters between supervised financial institutions and independent consultants retained by the firms to review foreclosures that were in process in 2009 and 2010.

The action plans are required by formal enforcement actions issued by the Federal Reserve last year. The enforcement actions direct mortgage loan servicers regulated by the Federal Reserve to submit acceptable plans that describe, among other things, how the institutions will strengthen communications with borrowers by providing each borrower the name of a primary point of contact at the servicer; establish limits on foreclosures where loan modifications have been approved; establish robust, third-party vendor controls; and strengthen compliance programs.

The Federal Reserve enforcement actions also require the parent holding companies of mortgage servicers to submit acceptable plans that describe, among other things, how the companies will improve oversight of servicing and foreclosure processing conducted by bank and nonbank subsidiaries.

The enforcement actions further require the mortgage servicing subsidiaries to provide appropriate remediation to borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of errors by the servicers. The engagement letters describe the procedures that will be followed by the independent consultants in reviewing servicers’ foreclosure files to determine whether borrowers suffered financial injury as a result of servicer error.

Release of the action plans and engagement letters follows reviews conducted from November 2010 to January 2011, in which examiners found unsafe and unsound processes and practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing at a number of supervised institutions.

The Federal Reserve will closely follow the implementation of action plans to ensure that the financial institutions correct deficiencies and evaluate any harm that was done to homeowners in the foreclosure process in 2009 and 2010. The Federal Reserve anticipates that more engagement letters and action plans will be posted soon.

Action plans and engagement letters: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20120227aletters.htm

When Are Countrywide Notes Endorsed? A Filing in A Federal Case Shows the Problems With Negotiability.

14 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 6:03 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: When Are Countrywide Notes Endorsed? A Filing in A Federal Case Shows the Problems With Negotiability.

When Are Countrywide Notes Endorsed? A Filing in A Federal Case Shows the Problems With Negotiability.

March 3rd, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

When exactly are promissory notes endorsed? When did the Plaintiff come to perfect his cause of action to foreclose? These were key questions in yesterday’s transcript of a court proceeding. When the judge referred to “673″, he was referring to the Uniform Commercial Code which is found in Chapter 673, Florida Statutes. He has picked up on that fact that “673″ and the rules of negotiability are critical components in this whole fraudclosure hurricane. Importantly, so has Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals…..it’s widely known that the Second is a very, very astute, academic and profoundly perceptive court. They’ve weighed in on a whole host of fraudclosure opinions and the opinions are tight and profound….

The sole basis upon which hundreds of millions of dollars in real wealth and millions of acres of property are being transferred from one party to another in this country are squiggly lines and stamps which purport to endorse the promissory notes an issue in millions of foreclosure cases pending all across this country.

In most cases, the notes were not intended by the loan servicers, depositors or mortgage backed security trustee to be transferred via endorsement alone. How do I know this? It says so right in the terms of the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The individual PSAs are the Constitution that governs the rights, responsibilities and relationships among the myriad parties in a typical mortgage loan. These documents were supposed to be followed by all the parties, but in the vast majority of cases they are just ignored by all parties and now by the courts. But they should not be ignored. The PSAs are the real source of guidance and direction in a world gone mad. The fact that we are all allowing them to be ignored with the constant mantra that, “you’re not a party to the agreement” and “the mortgage follows the note” is a failing on the part of the defense bar for not making it an issue in every case.

I recently stumbled upon a filing in a federal court case that’s pending in Southern Mississippi. I’ve got deep roots in Southern Mississippi, and frankly some great legal scholarship in consumer rights comes out of that area. I was following up on the bombshell federal litigation where Mississippi workers realized the money they had placed with big shot Yankee investors is um…well, a little squirrely, when I came across this fascinating case. But first, we would all do well to understand the Public Employee Retirement System of Mississippi lawsuit. It is alleged that Goldman Sachs misrepresented the quality of hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that were sold to these retirees. Goldman said they were solid gold, it turns out they were garbage. Mississippi said they were defrauded, Goldman says you shouldn’t expect our marketing, sales and investment material to be truthful, too bad your retirees lost their pension checks, screw you, we’re Goldman.

Now, what’s important to keep in mind is this is just one institutional investor who was smart enough to catch this. The allegations contained in this litigation could and should be being made in lawsuits all across this country….NEWSFLASH: ALL YOU RETIREES AND PEOPLE THAT THINK YOUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PENSIONS ARE SAFE…..REMEMBER THE OLD STORY, “THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES”

Anywhoo, back to the story the question about how billions of dollars in notes gets transferred should be on everyone’s mind. Our nation has been hijacked by the reckless and out of control banking system with their sloppiness, lies, smoke and mirrors and misrepresentations. And now they have thoroughly polluted our court systems. But some judges are fighting back. They are pulling back the curtain, not willing to be blown off or glossed over by slick lawyers who want to dust them off, distract them and suggest they should ignore fundamental legal principles.

The fate of this nation rests in the ability of good judges and a strong legal system to defend and protect this nation from the looming regime, the banking cabal, that has hijacked the whole of the United States government.

Read these deposition transcripts carefully, can you spot the critical legal issues that are spawned here? Can you figger out who the who in whoville is?

Consider the impact of this in all Countrywide cases…

Sjolander.pdf

Lynn Szymoniak Securitization Teach-In/Introduction to Mortgage Securitization

14 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:05 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Lynn Szymoniak Securitization Teach-In/Introduction to Mortgage Securitization

$25 Billion Mortgage Servicing Agreement Filed in Federal Court

14 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:24 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: $25 Billion Mortgage Servicing Agreement Filed in Federal Court

Consent judgments…”the settlement”

Complaint: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/complaint.pdf

Ally Financial Consent Judgment: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/residential-consent-judgement.pdf

Bank of America Consent Judgment: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/bank-of-america-consent-judgement.pdf

Citigroup Consent Judgment: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/citi-consent-judgement.pdf

JPMorgan Chase Consent Judgment: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/chase-consent-judgement.pdf

Wells Fargo Consent Judgment: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/wellsfargo-consent-judgement.pdf

Link to DOJ and related materials: http://www.justice.gov/opa/opa_mortgage-service.htm

Disgusting, all of it!

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Defending or Litigating Foreclosure?
Click Here For More Information

Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst. Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.

The Legal Lie at the Heart of the $8.5 Billion Bank of America and Federal/State Mortgage Settlements

13 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:15 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: The Legal Lie at the Heart of the $8.5 Billion Bank of America and Federal/State Mortgage Settlements

Monday, March 12, 2012 – Naked Capitalism Yves Smith

The Legal Lie at the Heart of the $8.5 Billion Bank of America and Federal/State Mortgage Settlements

Once in a while, you can discern a linchpin lie on which other important lies hinge. We can point to quite a few in America: the notion of a permanent war on terror, which somehow justifies vitiating not just the Constitution, but even the Magna Carta, or the idea of an imperial executive branch.

Now the apparently-to-be-filed-in-court-today Federal/state attorneys general mortgage settlement is less consequential than matters of life and limb. But it still show the lengths to which the officialdom is willing to go to vitiate the law in order to get its way.

HUD Secretary Donovan, the propagandist in chief for the Federal/state mortgage pact, has claimed he has investor approval to do the mortgage modifications that are a significant portion of the value of the settlement. We’ll eventually see what is actually in the settlement, but the early PR was that “no less than $10 billion” of the $25 billion headline total was to come from principal reductions. Modifications of mortgages not owned by banks, meaning in securitized trusts, are counted only 50% and before Donovan realized he was committing a faux pas, he said he expected 85% of the mods to be from securitizations, so that means $17 billion.

Bear in mind that investors, analysts, and commentators have objected to the very premise of this arrangement. A settlement involves a release of liability, and in anything other than the through-the-looking-glass world of rule by banks, the party that did the bad stuff is the one that pays for the settlement. This deal is like stealing your neighbor’s gold watch and using it to resolve charges of embezzlement.

But what about this investor approval that Donovan says he has? He has told both journalists and mortgage investors directly that the bulk of the mods will come from Countrywide deals and he has consent via the $8.5 billion Bank of America/Bank of New York settlement. Huh? First, it seems more that a bit cheeky to rely on a major piece of a program via a deal that has not yet gone through (the Bank of America settlement was removed to Federal court and has now been sent back to state court, and there will be discovery in the state court process, so approval is not imminent).

But second and more important, investors approved nothing. Bank of New York is trying to act well outside its authority as trustee for the 530 Countrywide trusts in the settlement. It’s tantamount to having a friend that you gave a medical power of attorney claim that it gave him the authority to sell your car and write checks on your account.

The terms of Countrywide PSAs vary, but all appear to restrict mods. The prohibitions varied by credit quality of the deal. Alt-A and early vintage (2004 and earlier) deals often barred mods completely; subprime and later vintage deals generally allowed for a higher limit on mods, with 5% the top amount across these deals. The idea was that some mods were expected in the dreckier mortgage pools. Nevertheless, all of them, as well as the few that had no caps, also required Bank of America to buy the modified loans back at par. That is something the battered Charlotte bank would be very keen to avoid doing.

Now remember, as we have discussed, that these Countrywide deals also typically elected New York law as governing law for the trust. New York trust law is both well settled and unforgiving. Trusts are permitted to act only as stipulated; any deviation is a “void act” and has no legal force. And a trustee can ONLY exercise the authority the trust has; as an agent, it cannot exceed the legal rights its principal has.

On top of that, Countrywide pooling and servicing agreements (the contracts that govern the securitizations, and in particular, set forth the duties of the servicer and the trustee), again like all PSAs, require an amendment to the PSA to change their terms. That in turn requires approval of the certificateholders, meaning the investors. Our Tom Adams has looked at a few Countrywide PSA, and what he has found so far is that it take the approval of either 51% or 2/3 of the certificateholders in each class, meaning in each tranche of the deal. To wit:

This Agreement may also be amended from time to time by the Depositor, each Seller, the Master Servicer and the Trustee with the consent of the Holders of a Majority in Interest of each Class of Certificates affected thereby for the purpose of adding any provisions to or changing in any manner or eliminating any of the provisions of this Agreement or of modifying in any manner the rights of the Holders of Certificates; provided,
however, that no such amendment shall (i) reduce in any manner the amount of, or delay the timing of, payments required to be distributed on any Certificate without the consent of the Holder of such Certificate, (ii) adversely affect in any material respect the interests of the Holders of any Class of Certificates in a manner other than as described in (i), without the consent of the Holders of Certificates of such Class evidencing, as to such Class,
Percentage Interests aggregating 66-2/3% or (iii) reduce the aforesaid percentages of Certificates the Holders of which are required to consent to any such amendment, without the consent of the Holders of all such Certificates then outstanding.

Now how does the Bank of America/Bank of New York settlement agreement deal with this wee problem? It pretends it does not exist (emphasis ours):

(e) Loss Mitigation Considerations. In considering modifications and/or other loss mitigation strategies, including, without limitation, short sales and deeds in lieu of foreclosure, the Master Servicer and all Subservicers shall consider the following factors: (a) the net present value of the Mortgage Loan at the time the modification and/or other loss mitigation strategy is considered and whether the contemplated modification and/or other loss mitigation strategy would have a positive effect on the net present value of the Mortgage Loan as compared to foreclosure; (b) where loan performance is the goal, whether the modification and/or other loss mitigation strategy is reasonably likely to return the Mortgage Loan to permanently performing status; (c) whether the borrower has the ability to pay, but has defaulted strategically or is otherwise acting strategically; (d) reasonably available avenues of recovery of the full principal balance of the Mortgage Loan other than foreclosure or liquidation of the loan; (e) the requirements of the applicable Governing Agreement; (f) such other factors as would be deemed prudent in its judgment; and (g) all requirements imposed by applicable Law. When the Master Servicer and/or Subservicer, in implementing a modification and/or other loss mitigation strategy (which may, pursuant to the Governing Agreements, include principal reductions), considers the factors set forth above, and/or acts in accordance with the policies or practices that the Master Servicer is then applying to its or any of its affiliates’ “held for investment” portfolios, the Master Servicer shall be deemed to be in compliance with its obligation to service the Mortgage Loans prudently in keeping with the relevant servicing provisions of the relevant Governing Agreement and the requirements of this Subparagraph 5(e), the modification and/or other loss mitigation strategy so implemented shall be deemed to be permissible under the terms of the applicable Governing Agreement, and the judgments in applying such factors to a particular loan shall not be subject to challenge under the applicable Governing Agreement, this Settlement Agreement, or otherwise.Notwithstanding anything else in this Subparagraph 5(e), no principal modification by the Master Servicer or any Subservicer shall reduce the principal amount due on any Mortgage Loan below the current market value of the property, as determined by a third-party broker price opinion, using a fair market value method, applying normal marketing time criteria and excluding REO or short sale comparative sales in the valuation calculation.

Now this might not strike you as amiss until you realize this deal is between the trustee, Bank of New York, and Bank of America. The investors are NOT party to it and their consent has not been obtained, either properly, via amendments to the PSA, or by any other means.

You might say, “Weren’t there 22 big investors who originally signed a letter that led to this deal?” Yes, and that happens to be irrelevant. Those 22 investors didn’t have even as much as 25% in most of the 530 trusts (the necessary percentage to take action against a trustee); there are many trusts in this settlement where these 22 investors have NO interest at all. So Bank of New York can’t pretend it has enough in the way of investors via the investor letter to give it the authority to ignore the PSA.

Keep this in mind: Bank of New York’s petition to the court to approve the deal in an Article 77 hearing makes NO mention of the fact that they will effectively be amending the PSA to permit modifications to stay in the trust and to exceed 5% of the pool balance.

Since the purpose of the hearing is to obtain a judicial determination whether Bank of New York acted properly in settling with Bank of America, one would assume the parties to the action are bound by the normal requirements of making accurate submissions to the court, just as they are at trial (Judge William Pauley, who approved the removal of the case to federal court, argued that this hearing fits “comfortably” within the definition of a trial). Thus BoNY should mention that the modification provision excerpted above requires an amendment which requires consent of 51% or more of the certificateholders in each class in each trust. Instead, they instead discuss the broad powers of the trustee! And yet they later argued the reverse to Judge Pauley. He noted in his ruling: “If, as BYNM [Bank of New York Mellon] argues, the only relevant legal standards for evaluating its conduct as trustee are found in the PSAs…” If they have only the authority given them by the PSA, they have no authority to authorized mods beyond those contemplated in the PSA for each deal.

And as we observed above even if BoNY could be argued to have additional authority under common law, that extra common law authority in New York is nada.

It is hard to conclude anything other than that Gibbs & Bruns, the firm representing Bank of New York, lied to the court about what the settlement constitutes and what the PSAs permit. The PSAs have very clear terms on modifications and changing them should require an amendment.

But lying to the court seems to be standard operating procedure for Kathy Patrick, the partner leading the settlement deal. Alison Frankel of Reuters described how Gibbs & Bruns lied about why they were leading this action:

The most dramatic moment at the Sept. 21 hearing on Bank of America’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed securities investors came near the end, when Gibbs & Bruns partner Robert Madden stood up to address Manhattan federal judge William Pauley’s concerns about how the settlement came to be. Tall and clear-spoken, Madden captured the judge’s attention as he explained that his clients, a group of 22 large institutional investors, hadn’t entered a sweetheart deal with BofA, but had banded together to force the bank to pony up billions to investors for claims BofA thought it would never have to deal with.

“The problem was that these repurchase claims were lying fallow,” Madden said, according to the transcript of the hearing. “No one was doing anything. None of (the investors now objecting to the deal) were doing anything. And, I’m sorry to say, the trustee wasn’t doing anything. Limitations were running on those claims, and nothing was happening.”

Or was it?

I’ve learned that in the summer of 2010, as Gibbs & Bruns began to push Countrywide MBS trustee Bank of New York Mellon to act on its assertions that mortgages underlying the Countrywide securities were deficient, another group of Countrywide MBS investors was finalizing its own notice of default to serve on BNY Mellon.

You need to read the Alison Frankel article in full to have some appreciation as to what happened. The pre-existing, and likely larger group of investors (I am told it included Fannie, which is one of the biggest investors in MBS) had concluded an investigation and found breaches in every single Countrywide securitization (Bill Frey had developed proof of Countrywide modifying loans where Bank of America owned a second lien behind that first and had not wiped it out first, as would be required). But when Fannie confirmed the Frey information and said it was in, Blackrock suddenly withdrew and went with Patrick, as shortly did another existing Gibbs & Bruns client, Pimco.

Now why, might you ask, would investors drop out of a group that had hard evidence of breaches and could prove real economic harm, and switch to one that could only handwave? I’m no fan of rep and warranty cases, and even so, I’ve estimated this deal is a screaming bargain for those liabilities alone; the servicing breaches that the earlier (Grais & Ellis) group found would add to the total value of the deal, as does its waiver on chain of title claims. It’s not hard to guesstimate that this settlement is worth easily ten times the $8.5 billion Bank of America plans to pony up. And Mr. Market agrees. BofA’s stock was trading below $6 when both settlements were in doubt; it’s now up more than 33%, closing last Friday at $8.05.

So why would Pimco and Blackrock abandon a strategy that would seem likely to bear more fruit? Recall that Blackrock signed on to the Gibbs & Bruns negotiated settlement while it was still 49% owned by Merrill, um, Bank of America. So its motives seem straightforward, even if they also happen to be a breach of its fiduciary duty to its investors.

Pimco is awfully active in Washington; it is almost certainly one of the fund managers that the Fed chooses to talk to about its interest rate thinking, which effectively means Pimco has permitted inside information (one of my readers refused to invest in Pimco funds because the returns were sufficiently out of line with benchmarks that the funds either had to be taking on more risk than they pretended to or were reliant on privileged information). So Pimco has plenty of reason to curry favor rather than make life miserable for Bank of America, and by extension, the Administration, which has thrown its lot in fully with the big banks.

Now let’s go back to the Donovan lie, which depends on the Gibbs & Bruns lie not being challenged by the court, or the $8.5 billion settlement not coming unglued for some other reason. Donovan is relying on the authority supposedly conferred by the $8.5 billion settlement…which has not been approved by court, meaning it is not yet valid and may not come to fruition. Yet (per leaks) the banks are to get credit for mods starting March 31 even though the Federal/state AG deal won’t be approved by that date either. And remember also that four other large servicers are signing up to the Federal/state settlement. Even though the authorities anticipate that the other major servicers will enter into private settlements along the BofA/BoNY lines once it is approved, that is some ways away even if everything breaks in the banks’s favor.

Recall how sanctimonious Timothy Geithner has been about not breaking contracts, such as the AIG credit default swaps agreements and employment contracts with AIG staffers. Similarly, Obama pay czar Kenneth Feinberg excoriated bankers for the bonuses they took out of firms they blew up but refused to try to claw back pay, because it might lead to lawsuits. So? The Administration didn’t necessarily need to win that litigation to prevail. If it did discovery on what executives were paid, what they did, and how derelict they were in their duty, they could have created such a huge and cry so to keep bankers cowed for at least five years. And as we have pointed out repeatedly, Team Obama has also refused to use the best weapon in its arsenal: Sarbanes Oxley, which would allow it to file civil and from that if successful, criminal charges for false certifications about the adequacy of internal controls, in particular, risk controls.

Now the railroading of investors may not seem all that important to many of you. But you are in fact all exposed. The failure of Fannie to pursue valid claims, for instance, is a direct subsidy from taxpayers to Bank of America and other banks. And more important, if investors are for the most part, too afraid, too compromised, or too plain lazy to take action against banks, and will sit passively as their contracts are violated, what hope is there for ordinary, less well connected citizens?

This settlement farce reveals yet again that contracts in America have become decidedly one sided affairs: banks will take advantage of every trap and snare, and engage in further abuses if they can get away with them, but woe betide anyone on the other side. You have perilous little hope that you will get a fair hearing from regulators (witness the farce of the OCC foreclosure reviews) or courts, since banks both outgun and outlie most opponents.

The banks and the authorities seem remarkably unaware of what they are doing in undermining the rule of law, which is critical to resolving disputes peacefully in a complex and combative society. They are likely to find that undermining the protective role of the judiciary will leave them more exposed than they could possibly imagine.

We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

13 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:38 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

From 4closurefraud:

Exclusive Smoking Gun | The Sophisticated and The Scammed IV – It Appears We Now have PROOF that Mortgage Loans Were Pledged to Multiple Trusts

So last night we got word from Virginia Parsons, our friend over at www.deadlyclear.com. She discovered a WAMU loan in a WAMU trust that was ALSO in TWO other WAMU trusts.

Yes, this appears to be a TRIPLE PLEDGED loan.

Well, as we know from experience in the fraudclosure underworld, that if you find an anomaly it usually is not an anomaly.

So what did Lisa decide to do? Well, look for more silly.

Guess what…

Here is what she found after she dumped the tr…

From Lisa

I looked at the SEC filed loan level data for all three trusts and ran a comparison for all the loan numbers that were listed in the 2006 SEC files.

I found a total of 44 loans (including Ginny’s triple pledged loan) and here are the results.

Each of these loans is in two (one is in three) of the following trusts:

WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR11

WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR13

WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR15

Loan Number WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR
3010064859 11 15
3010002701 11 15
714934858 11 13 15
3010073819 11 13
3010112153 11 13
3010166548 15 13
3010238461 11 13
3010272585 15 13
3010294712 15 13
3010466831 11 13
3010555286 15 13
3010566010 15 13
3010584575 15 13
3010589509 15 13
3010631244 11 13
3010943060 15 13
3010944548 15 13
3011042730 15 13
3062099423 15 13
3062174630 11 13
3062175199 11 13
3062215581 11 13
3062251925 11 13
3062342641 11 13
3062427889 11 13
3062431626 15 13
3062544402 11 13
3062638584 11 13
3062660091 11 13
3062663459 11 13
3062663459 15 13
3062717586 11 13
3062721349 15 13
3062758135 15 13
3062759299 15 13
3062810019 11 15
3062917996 11 13
3062954270 11 15
3063020881 11 13
3063123990 11 13
3063140127 15 13
3063180966 15 13
3063191302 15 13
3063197093 11 13

She ONLY compared these three trusts, for all we know these loans could be in other trusts also.

Is this the final smoking gun we need? How many loans were multiple pledged into numerous trusts?

Can they allow the foreclosure to continue on loans that have been sold multiple times?

So many questions.

More to come as we dig into it.

Reuters is already all over it for us.

Matt Weidner video on AG settlement

13 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Matt Weidner video on AG settlement

Matt Weidner video on AG settlement papers I sent out yesterday or so…

!

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Defending or Litigating Foreclosure?
Click Here For More Information

Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst. Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.

Phil Querin on the James Case in Oregon – two part commentary on the case included here…ruling attached. REQUIRED READING!

9 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:22 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Phil Querin on the James Case in Oregon – two part commentary on the case included here…ruling attached. REQUIRED READING!
Importance: High

By Phil Querin.

“In Roman mythology, the god Janus, for whom each year’s first month is named, was the deity of beginnings and endings. According to legend, the titan Saturn gave the two-faced god the power to see both the future and the past. Romans carved both of Janus’ two faces on gates and doorways to solemnize momentous transitions. Most notably, in the Roman Forum, the Senate erected the ritual gates called the Janus Geminus, which the Romans opened in times of conflict. At war’s outset, priests made sacrifices here to curry favor from the gods and forecast the prospects of success. No deity better symbolizes what financiers hoped to create when they founded the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). MERS sits as a dichotomous, enigmatic gatekeeper on the vestibule of our nation’s complex and turbulent mortgage finance industry. Financiers invoked MERS’s name at the beginning of millions of subprime and exotic mortgage loan transactions and again invoke its name as they attempt to terminate so many of these loans through foreclosure. Like Janus, MERS is two-faced: impenetrably claiming to both own mortgages and act as an agent for others who also claim ownership.” Professor Christopher Peterson, “Two Faces: Demystifying The Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory”

In a stunning rejection of the earlier Beyer and James cases [severely criticized by yours truly here, here, here, here, here and [satirically] here – PCQ] holding that MERS and Big Banks may ignore the plain language of the mandatory recording law found at ORS 86.735(1), recently appointed U.S. Federal District Judge Michael H. Simon, issued a 41-page Opinion and Order (attached) that should be required reading for all lawyers and laypersons interested in the current MERS issues bouncing around in Oregon’s state and federal courts. Quoting Lake Oswego attorney Kelly Harpster’s statement to the Oregonian, Judge Simon’s ruling is “the most thorough and thoughtful analysis of the MERS issue that has yet been published ….”

The court’s written opinion, in clear, cogent and concise language, systematically dismantled the Big Banks’ arguments set out in the cookie cutter pro-MERS briefs that they uniformly file across the country whenever MERS is attacked as a sham. And MERS was not without its big guns in the recent James case. It was represented by the 900-lawyer Fullbright and Jawarski international law firm, in tandem with its local counsel, 200-lawyer Lane Powell, PC.

On the side of the angels was The Law Office of Terry Scannell, ably assisted by a host of unnamed, but heroic, consumer and foreclosure defense attorneys who freely donated their time, effort, support, and collective intelligence to this huge win. They know who they are. Congratulations all!

Procedural Background. If you’re reading this article, you are likely familiar with the ongoing debate as to whether ORS 86.735(1) requires that all assignments of a trust deed must be publically recorded in the county records before commencing a non-judicial foreclosure in Oregon. For a brief summary, go to this link.

Up until now, the score was tied at 2 and 2. The McCoy decision by Federal Bankruptcy Chief Judge Frank R. Alley III, held that if banks want to foreclose Oregonians out of their homes, they must follow the plain language of ORS 86.735(1) and record all assignments of the trust deed – from first to last. Then along came the Hooker decision by Federal District Court Judge Owen Panner, which followed much of the reasoning of Judge Alley.

On the other side of the scoreboard were the two, more recent, Federal Court decisions referenced above, Beyer and James, holding that the plain language of ORS 86.735(1) – which has remained substantially unchanged and unchallenged since its inception in 1959 – did not really mean what it said. ORS 86.735(1) provides:

“The trustee may foreclose a trust deed by advertisement and sale in the manner provided in ORS 86.740 to 86.755 if: (1) The trust deed, any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary and any appointment of a successor trustee are recorded in the mortgage records in the counties in which the property described in the deed is situated***”

The Beyer opinion was written by Federal Judge Michael Mosman; the James decision was issued by a Federal Magistrate, Janice Stewart. This meant that if Mr. and Mrs. James timely objected to her ruling [known as “Findings and Recommendations” or “F&Rs” – PCQ], the assigned federal district court judge – in this case, Judge Simon – must review those F&Rs objected to, “de novo” – i.e. all over again. Judge Simon complied in spades, and revisited each major argument made by the MERS attorneys, and each major point made by Judge Mossman and Magistrate Stewart in their respective opinions.[1]

The Main Issue. Judge Simon succinctly identified it as follows:

“The primary question presented in this case is whether an entity such as MERS may be a ‘beneficiary’ under the OTDA [the Oregon Trust Deed Act – PCQ] if it is neither a lender nor a successor to a lender. If MERS can be a “beneficiary” under the OTDA in such circumstances, then any assignments of the trust deed that were not publicly recorded and made only among the members of MERS (and privately recorded only within the MERS internal database) would not preclude the availability of a non-judicial foreclosure. If, however, MERS is not a beneficiary under the OTDA, then the existence of any assignments by a trustee or beneficiary that were not publicly recorded in appropriate county files would preclude a non-judicial foreclosure.”

The reason that the definition of “beneficiary” is pivotal is because MERS has consistently argued that it has been contractually appointed as the “nominee” of the lender to act as the “beneficiary.” If true, then that designation would give MERS the ability to do things that the OTDA only permits beneficiaries to do; i.e. assign the trust deed and appoint a successor trustee. Furthermore, if permitted to act as the de jure beneficiary of record, then all of the de facto off-record assignments are irrelevant, and MERS’ “single assignment” to the foreclosing bank legally complies with ORS 86.735(1). But if MERS is wrong, it places into question the ability of any MERS member bank that has relied upon the off-record registration model, to legally conduct a non-judicial foreclosure.

From this starting point, Judge Simon methodically addressed each side’s arguments. However, in doing so, he has also written a very good primer on MERS, Oregon real estate finance law, and Oregon foreclosure law – both judicial and non-judicial. Since I could not presume to do a better job, let me just suggest to readers seeking a more complete understanding of the MERS landscape in Oregon, that they focus on pages 3 through 11 of Judge Simon’s well-written opinion, here.

There were several “take-aways” in Judge Simon’s written ruling. Discussed below are those findings I believe are particularly significant:

Finding: MERS is Not a Beneficiary Under Oregon’s Trust Deed Act. Following standard methodology in determining the Oregon Legislature’s intent, Judge Simon concluded that the definition of a “beneficiary” found in ORS 86.705(2)[2] can really only refer to the holder of the promissory note [sometimes referred in his opinion as the “noteholder” – PCQ] which the trust deed secures.[3] He based his conclusion upon a plain reading of several other provisions in the OTDA. Judge Simon went to great lengths examining these other statutes to support his reasoning that the noteholder could have been the only logical person or entity intended to be the “beneficiary.”

With regards to the earlier Beyer decision that concluded otherwise, Judge Simon simply said: “I respectfully decline to adopt the reasoning in Beyer.” Judge Mosman in the Beyer decision was so intent on concluding that MERS receive a “benefit” he gratuitously found that MERS had the right to receive borrowers’ payments under the promissory note – something that MERS itself denies. Judge Simon knew better, noting that such a result “invites a variety of incongruous applications….” [such as borrowers making their mortgage payments to MERS, etc. – PCQ][4]

Effect of Finding that MERS is not the Beneficiary. For the last few years now, MERS has argued that the Oregon Legislature’s definition of a trust deed beneficiary was never intended to require that the beneficiary and the note holder be one and the same. Judge Simon’s conclusion drives a stake through the heart of that argument. [I will put a different point on it – admittedly with less finesse than Judge Simon – MERS’ arguments that it may serve not only as the lender’s nominee, but also the lender, are not only specious, but they are an affront to anyone conversant with 5th grade-level English. [Imagine going to any standard dictionary and finding the definition of “beneficiary” to include persons having no right to receive a benefit – yet that is what MERS contends for in its legal arguments. Judge Simon rightly concluded that since MERS is – by its own admission – a mere “nominee” or “agent” of the lender – it is not “the lender.” Therefore, as a mere agent, MERS can receive no benefit under the trust deed. End of discussion….]

Not being a beneficiary means that MERS may not “act” like a beneficiary; ergo, it may not assign trust deeds and it may not appoint successor trustees to foreclose Oregon homeowners.

Finding: The Big Banks’ Single Assignment Theory is Rejected. Once MERS convinced Judge Mosman and Magistrate Stewart that it could legally act as a Beneficiary, it then argued that its member banks’ foreclosures were legally compliant with ORS 86.735(1) by the “single assignment” from MERS to the foreclosing lender.[5]

Obviously, Mr. and Mrs. James took the opposite position – i.e. that MERS was a sham designed to avoid the recording law, and that all of the successive assignments of the trust deed, from start to finish, had to be recorded before the foreclosing bank was compliant with ORS 86.735(1). Until that happened, the foreclosure was invalid.

Judge Simon sided with the James, holding that “…the noteholder, not MERS, is the beneficiary of the trust deed.” Moreover, he concluded that since the trust deed follows the note[6], “…the transfer of the note necessarily causes an assignment of the security instrument [i.e. the trust deed], even if the security instrument is not formally assigned.” [Underscore mine. – PCQ]

Judge Simon rejected Magistrate Stewart’s conclusion that these automatic assignments of the trust deed that occur by operation of law when the promissory note is transferred were “not the same act as an assignment of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary contemplated by ORS 86.735(1).” Over nearly three pages of his opinion, Judge Simon meticulously dissected the case of Jackson v Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W 248 (Minn. 2009), upon which Magistrate Stewart relied. In doing so, he concluded that the Jackson case was distinguishable from the Oregon law for one basic reason – Minnesota real estate law uses mortgages[7] while Oregon law uses trust deeds[8], to securitize the promissory note:

“Under the OTDA, therefore, the trustee holds legal title to the trust deed and the beneficiary holds equitable title to the trust deed. Because MERS is neither the trustee nor the beneficiary, it holds no title at all.”

****

“ORS §86.735(1), therefore, requires the recording of assignments of both legal and equitable title, which is different from the law in Minnesota according to Jackson. Further, because the noteholder, not MERS, is the beneficiary, ORS § 86.735(1) requires the recording of an assignment of the beneficial interest for each transfer of the note.”

Effect of Rejecting the Single Assignment Argument. Simply stated, Judge Simon concluded that from the lender who actually funds the loan, to the lender who conducts the foreclosure, every time the trust deed is transferred by operation of law [i.e. because of the transfer of the promissory note – PCQ], and every time the trust deed is transferred by a formal assignment document, ORS 86.735(1) requires that each event must be recorded.[9] How the banks intend to comply is impossible to fathom. I suspect some banks, fearful of further judicial backlash, will simply start conducting judicial foreclosures, since ORS 86.735(1) does not apply to that process.

Finding: The Big Banks and MERS May not “Contract Around” the OTDA. The lending industry has used a standard form trust deed that contains express [and very self-serving – PCQ] language to the effect that the borrower voluntarily agrees that MERS may serve in its capacity as the “beneficiary,” and this should be binding. Accordingly, MERS argued that regardless of the statutory definition of a “beneficiary” in ORS 86.705(2), the parties may “contract around” that law. Judge Simon found otherwise, saying that the OTDA serves a “broad and important public purpose” and therefore it was not something that can be waived. He also noted that the entire statutory scheme in ORS Chapter 90, the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act (“ORLTA”), sets de minimus standards for landlord compliance, but makes them subject to the proviso: “unless the parties agree otherwise….” [10] No such latitude is found in the OTDA, and therefore, concluded Judge Simon, it is reasonable to believe that the OTDA was not intended to be a set of laws that could be contractually waived or avoided.

Effect of Finding that MERS may not “Contract Around” ORS 86.705(2). This further places into question the entire MERS business model. It’s one thing for Judge Simon to find that MERS does not fall within the legal definition of a “beneficiary” but his ruling that the lender and borrower cannot agree otherwise, seems to seal MERS’ fate; metaphorically, MERS is no longer invited to come in through the front door, and now it can’t sneak in through the back.

[Continued below….]

[1] Sidebar Comment: Nothing is more gratifying to an amateur blogger like myself, than to have an “I told you so!” moment. I had more than one such moments while reading Judge Simon’s opinion. At various places in the opinion Judge Simon effectively dispatched several MERS’ arguments made in the earlier Beyer and James cases – arguments that I found specious at the outset. The reason for my frustration was that the MERS lawyers were able to unabashedly rely upon pure sophistry, since they did not have to contend with real lawyers on the other side – both cases were brought by pro se’ plaintiffs. I view the recent James redux as a victory for Plain English and Basic Logic. – PCQ

[2] Note: Judge Simon referred to subsection (2) of the statute found in the 2011 Oregon laws. The link I have provided cites to the 2009 edition of the same law, and the relevant language is found at subsection (1). For some reason, the publishers of Oregon Revised Statutes are able to get the printed version out faster than the online version. So much for technology….

[3] Judge Simon noted that the term “beneficiary” does not expressly refer to the one holding the “note” in order to “encompass all possible security arrangements.” Lest anyone wonder what those “arrangements” might include, the answer is that the trust deed not only secures “payment” but also “performance.” For that reason, trust deeds are used to secure a personal guaranty of the promissory note that might be given by a third party to the bank. A guarantor whose obligation is secured by the trust deed is not a “noteholder.”

[4] As pointed out in my earlier post on the Beyer decision, here, this conclusion [that MERS has the right to receive borrowers’ payments – PCQ) is simply a finding that resulted because the judge was not familiar with MERS’ business model. Remember, the Beyers were pro se’ litigants – meaning that they had no attorney. You can be sure that the MERS attorneys had no desire to correct Judge Mosman’s erroneous conclusion. They were happy with the win, even though it was based upon a misunderstanding of what MERS purports to do.

[5] If the original loan did not name MERS as the Beneficiary, then presumably that assignment, i.e. the one to MERS in the first place, would also have to be recorded prior to commencement of the foreclosure as well. Thus there would have to be two assignments, one to MERS and the last from MERS – PCQ

[6] This well established Oregon law has been memorialized in a famous poem by an unknown author. It can be found here.

[7] A 2-party instrument, mortgagor (borrower) and mortgagee (lender). Upon default of the promissory note, the mortgagee-lender has the power of foreclose.

[8] A 3-party instrument, grantor (borrower), beneficiary (lender) and a trustee who retains the power to sell the property upon default of the note.

[9] Query: How does one “record” on the public record an event that only occurred by operation of law? Recording assumes that a tangible document has been prepared and signed by one or both parties before a notary public.

[10] While Judge Simon’s observation is a good one, the ORLTA is much more restrictive than this language suggests. That is, notwithstanding the clause, “unless the parties agree otherwise,” ORLTA contains some very stringent language at the commencement of Chapter 90, to wit: ORS 90.130 imposes an obligation of good faith as a “condition precedent to the exercise of a right or remedy under this chapter.” ORS 90.150 permits a court to unilaterally refuse to enforce any provision of the rental agreement that it concludes was “unconscionable when made.” The initial reason for the disparity in statutory protection between ORLTA and the OTDA may have been a fundamental one: Consumer advocates initially believed that tenants needed more protection from landlords than borrowers from banks. Today, I submit that is not the case. Most landlords understand, respect, and actually strive to follow the law. The same cannot be said of Big Banks.

James v. Recontrust et al – Order.pdf

bac v awl ex parte Read this one.

9 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:50 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: bac v awl ex parte Read this one.

Countrywide v. America’s Wholesale Lender, Inc.

Infringement lawsuit. Note, Steve Vondran is representing AWL, Inc.

This could get “interesting”…

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox – Oregon State Director for the National Homeowners Cooperative
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: http://www.NHCwest.com; www.BayLiving.com; and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax


Defending or Litigating Foreclosure?
Click Here For More Information

Paralegal; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker; Certified Forensic Loan Analyst. Litigation Support; Mortgage and Real Estate Expert Witness Services.

gov.uscourts.cacd.524165.11.0.pdf
gov.uscourts.cacd.524165.10.0.pdf
gov.uscourts.ctd.94549.32.0.pdf

Wells Fargo LOSES at Seventh Circuit Appellate …. Excoriating opinion regarding a HAMP Class Action. AND a Judicial Request for a Federal Amicus Curiae

9 Mar

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:50 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Wells Fargo LOSES at Seventh Circuit Appellate …. Excoriating opinion regarding a HAMP Class Action. AND a Judicial Request for a Federal Amicus Curiae

<excerpts>

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. We are asked in this appeal

to determine whether Lori Wigod has stated claims

under Illinois law against her home mortgage servicer

for refusing to modify her loan pursuant to the federal

Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).

She brought this putative class action alleging violations

of Illinois law under common-law contract and tort

theories and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The district

court dismissed the complaint in its entirety under

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This appeal followed, and it presents two sets of issues.

The first set of issues concerns whether Wigod

has stated viable claims under Illinois common law and

the ICFA. We conclude that she has on four counts

These allegations support garden-variety

claims for breach of contract or promissory estoppel.

She has also plausibly alleged that Wells Fargo com-

mitted fraud under Illinois common law and engaged in

unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of the

ICFA.

The second set of issues concerns whether these

state-law claims are preempted or otherwise barred by

federal law. We hold that they are not.

We accordingly reverse the judgment of

the district court on the contract, promissory estoppel,

fraudulent misrepresentation, and ICFA claims …

IV. Conclusion

The judgment of the district court is therefore

REVERSED as to Counts I, II, and VII, and the

fraudulent misrepresentation claim of Count V …

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I am very pleased

to join the excellent opinion of the court written by

Judge Hamilton. I write separately only to note that, in

my view, our task of adjudicating this matter would

have been assisted significantly if the United States had

entered this case as an amicus curiae.

In this case, this last consideration justifies the

decision to proceed without further delay. Prompt resolution

of this matter is necessary not only for the good

of the litigants but for the good of the Country.

CASE FILE Illinois Appellate CLASS ACTION REVERSAL LORI WIGOD, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.pdf

election news

9 Mar

From: Marc Tow [mailto:marctow2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 7:38 AM
To: Tim McCandless; tim mccandless
Subject: election news

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-america-announces-agreements-principle-204700717.html

Marc R. Tow
Email: marctow2000
Skype: Marc.Tow
9393 W. 110th Street, Suite 500
Overland Park, Kansas 66210