Welcome to LivingLies Blog – Serving Over 6,300,000 Visitors

Your Source for Information, Resources and Help with your Loan Strategy

Free Resources and Information

Online Store: Get help for your loan strategy from LivingLies Experts

Title & Securitization Report – Your starting point to get the information you need for your defense. Livinglies subscribers save $200!
Become a Member of LivingLies Blog - FREE access to LivingLies Experts through member only conferences, FREE webinars, get member only discounts on products, and more!
Expert Declaration - Get an expert declaration produced by LivingLies experts to be used in court for YOUR defense.
Attorney Workbook - Are you an attorney for loan & foreclosure defense? Get instant access to the electronic version of our Attorney Workbook and get forms, cases, statutes, commentary, articles, outlines for mortgage analysis, lessons on securitization and MUCH MORE!
Forensic TILA Loan Analysis - Recommended companion service to Title & Search Report. We will get all your loan closing documents together with our proprietary research database and provide a comprehensive review, report and analysis, ready for a qualified written request, debt validation letter or lawsuit.
DVD Attorney CLE Seminar – Full Day Seminar for lawyers covering all aspects of securitization and foreclosure defense.

SEND ALL ROBOSIGNING (SURROGATE SIGNING) EXAMPLES AND PLEADINGS TO ROBOSEARCH.LIVINGLIES@GMAIL.COM

Dimon Threatens Obama: Investigate and Lose Settlement

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Comment: If there was any doubt in your mind about who thinks they run the government, it was dispelled yesterday when Reuters reported that Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase warned Obama that if the new investigation team actually does anything, there won’t be any settlement.

The sheer arrogance of a possible criminal demanding that the government stop investigating him or else the too big too fail bank won’t participate in settlement talks is unfathomable. It demands a response from Obama and it demands a re-thinking at the White House about its relationships with the big banks.

The real investigations are just getting started, with considerable support from already published instances of robo-signing, surrogate signing, forgery, fabrication and fraud in the foreclosure process.

Dimon reacted because of one major risk: the entire securitization scheme will be revealed as a scam from beginning to end. This would mean that the banks would have enormous liability to virtually all MBS investors, enormous tax liability for the REMICs and potentially to the investors, and enormous liability to homeowners who were duped into thinking that they had been through conventional loan underwriting when in fact it was jsut a marketing scheme to justify the movement of money.

As stated on these pages before, the result will be

  • (1) that investors, as creditors in these transactions are owed 100 cents on the dollar not by the homeowners, but by the Banks, who took investor money and either didn’t invest it all in loans, or invested in loans that they knew ( and were betting on) would fail
  • (2) that potentially trillions of dollars in unreported income went untaxed amounting more than any bailout
  • (3) that the mortgage documentation was so defective as to defy reformation or correction, leaving the loans unsecured and possibly non-existent and
  • (4) that the homeowners who have been foreclosed and dispossessed still own their properties with an unclear debt or obligation that is unsecured.

Dimon is trying to block reality from entering into the picture. Selling the loans multiple times through exotic instruments that looked like hedge products has its consequences. It leaves the creditor or its agents filled with money obtained through multiple payments on the same debt. All this seems counter-intuitive, I know. And it sure puts a crimp on the foreclosure plan that takes homes to satisfy a debt that has already been satisfied multiple times.

Beyond that, it provides a blueprint for correcting the corruption of the title registries across the country. Once the loans are shown to be defective beyond recognition, and once securitization is shown to be a word and a plan that was never actually executed, the whole thing boils down to one simple fact: there were loans but there were no mortgages. Papers was signed that meant nothing, disclosed nothing and violated every industry practice in place for hundreds of years.

There is no greater fiscal stimulus to the economy than returning ill-gotten gains to the investors and homeowners who were victims of this scheme. It will save pensions and allow people to recover the wealth that was siphoned out of the economy instead of the job Wall Street was meant to fulfill — pumping liquidity into the economy for expansion, innovation and prosperity. The answer is right there in front of us. The Banks have attempted to place false ideology in front of the requirements of law. The only question is whether the government will let that happen.

See Full Story on Reuters

JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said President Barack Obama’s decision to expand investigations into home lending and sales of mortgage securities could stop settlement talks with the states over foreclosure practices.

“It has a pretty good chance of derailing it,” Dimon said in a televised interview with CNBC from Davos, Switzerland on Thursday.

Obama, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said he has asked his attorney general to create a special unit of prosecutors to expand investigations into home lending and packaging of mortgage-backed securities. It is not clear how the new unit will be different from earlier investigations.

JPMorgan is the largest U.S. bank and one of the larger servicers of mortgage loans. JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Co, Citigroup and Ally Financial Inc have been in talks with state attorneys general for months about settling allegations of foreclosure abuses.

The banks and states have been discussing a plan that would have the banks pay $25 billion to homeowners through reductions in principal on mortgage loans.

“I think it would be better for America if that settlement took place,” Dimon said. “If this thing derails that, so be it.”

(Reporting by David Henry; editing by John Wallace)

 

Banks Cover Up Their Actual Losses and Insolvency

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

RECEIVERS SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO FORCE DISGORGEMENT OF PENSION MONEY

Editor’s Note: It isn’t just the Banks that are covering up the fact that those “assets” on their balance sheet are not assets and never were owned by the Banks. The underlying threat here is that the loss is going to hit pension funds and other “investors” in RMBS whose money was used to fund mortgages (after the investment banks took a huge bite out of the pool of funds as “trading profits”). Pensioners are already getting notices of cutbacks and even elimination of the pension benefits.

This is all brought to you by the makers of such accounting tricks like “off balance sheet transactions.” Try telling your boss that the money you stole was an off balance sheet transaction and see if that covers it — or if you end up a guest of the state or federal government in prison.

RMBS Losses in Limbo: As Bad As They Seem, The Reality May Be Much Worse

By Ann Rutledge | Published: January 25, 2012

Since the financial crisis in 2007, residential mortgage-backed securities have been hit with high levels of borrower defaults, realized losses and credit rating downgrades.  Realized losses declared on private residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), already much higher than original rating agency and investor estimates, are projected to rise substantially in the coming months, according to a recent analysis by R&R Consulting, a credit rating and valuation firm in New York.

On the securities performing at December 2011, a universe of approximately $1.42 trillion, R&R estimate the amount of additional losses likely to materialize is $300 billion, with one-third concentrated in ten arranger names, including Countrywide, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. About 17,000 tranches, or 34% of the universe analyzed by R&R, may lose up to 83% of their remaining principal.

In addition, R&R estimates that approximately $175 billion of losses already incurred on the loans have not yet been allocated to the bonds in the related transactions. Failure to allocate realized loan losses could distort the valuation of related RMBS tranches.

“The light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off for RMBS,” said Iuliia Palamar, head of ABS research for R&R.  “We are now drilling down into the analysis to identify the individual transactions by vintage, servicer and other important issues with respect to these losses.”

Unallocated Losses by Security VintageUnallocated Losses by Security Vintage

In the course of conducting valuations on RMBS, the R&R analytics team discovered widespread, serious, repeated data discrepancies. Ann Rutledge, a founding principal, asked the team to measure the magnitude of the discrepancy on the RMBS universe. To do this, R&R subtracted cumulative losses allocated to the tranches from unallocated, expected losses, calculated as the sum of defaults, bankruptcies, foreclosures and REOs minus recoveries. “The results were very disturbing: $175 billion of unallocated current losses and $300 billion of imminent losses,” Rutledge said.

Rutledge commented that she was not clear why these losses are being held in limbo instead of being properly allocated, since the data used by R&R in the calculations were included in the servicer reports. She cautioned, “Investors should be concerned about receiving inaccurate bond performance information and paying unnecessary fees.”

The implication for bond holders in RMBS is significant with respect to both estimates.  Subordinated securities in the RMBS with probable future losses ought to be written down by such losses but instead may be continuing to receive interest owed to more senior tranches. It could also mean that servicers are earning fees against loans that have already been liquidated, which also reduces the amount of cash to pay senior bond holders.  For example, in one month, servicers could generate $75 million or more in inappropriate fees against the $175 billion in unallocated losses.

Rutledge also noted that R&R has observed a steady increase in amount of limbo losses, raising the prospect that a significant amount of funds are still being misallocated for bond investors.

“The system for MBS is still fundamentally broken,” she said. “All the loose ends need to be identified and knit together into a well-functioning system before investors can feel comfortable investing in RMBS once more.”

R&R Consulting is a credit rating and valuation boutique. Founded in 2000, R&R has a patented process for obtaining current intrinsic valuations on structured securities in the secondary market.

Inquiries should contact Iuliia Palamar at +12128675693 or iuliia@creditspectrum.com

 

Advice of Counsel on MERS: Covington’s Legal Opinion

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR REQUIRED

Covington 2004 Legal Opinion to MERSCORP

Editor’s Comment: In my opinion the purpose of this letter was to provide CYA to MERS and its founders and members. Since it was dated in 2004 and questions were already emerging about the legality of MERS and what it would do to the title registries, MERS sought a legal opinion so that they could say they were proceeding “on advice of counsel.” Generally, this takes the operation out of range for criminal prosecution, but not always. It could land both MERS and the lawyers (including members of the our justice department in hot water depending upon the full circumstances surrounding the request from MERS and the answer from Covington.

Considering the fact that the leading members of the department of justice worked at Covington, it is imperative that we have an independent special prosecutor appointed to review the whole process. Such action has been taken on a lot less facts than what we have now.

The letter implies that a private system of title registry is legal and valid without committing itself to the fact that such a private registry would and should have no probative value in case there was litigation regarding the transfers. MERS was not certified or even allowed to proceed as a substitute for the public records of each state nor did they even apply for such status. Records of MERS should be ignored in any contested proceeding.

But the big question is what would this opinion look like if they had been told that the parties were manipulating the data, fabricating documents, forging signatures and otherwise violating the documents of record?

Particularly troublesome is this quote from the opinion issued by Covington:

“In this manner, the eRegistryenables the rightful eNote owner to demonstrate conclusive legal control of the transferable record.Further, it is our understanding that, in performing initial registration of eNotes,the eRegistry: [Editor's Note: They are parsing words. They are saying that by contract the party claiming ownership of the RECORD has it. That might be true, but what about the actual existence of documents referred to in the record and whether they were validly executed, prepared and filed? They don't answer that. Instead they bootstrap the reasoning to mean that if a contract exists concerning some bookkeeping records, then everything supporting those entries in the record must be presumed as true --- binding the State, who was not a party,, the borrower, who was not a party, and the investor who was not a party.
confirms the validity of the issuer; -[never happened]
confirms that the registration dataset is complete; -[never happened]
confirms that the eNote is not already registered by assigning a uniqueMortgage Identification Number (MIN) and hash value to each eNote;
creates a unique registration record; and -[never happened]
sends a confirmation to the issuer. -[never happened]
Likewise, in recording a transfer of eNotes, the eRegistry:
validates both the transferor and transferee; -[never happened]
compares the hash value stored in the eRegistry with the value submitted by the transferor; and
10
In brief, the person who controls a transferable record has the same rights as a holder of an equivalent paper instrument under the U.C.C., including, where applicable, rights as a holder in due course. -[never happened]
 MERSCORP, Inc.October 21, 2004Page 5
requires confirmation by the transferee within a specified time period after the transfer request [never happened]
See
UETA § 16(d); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(d). Likewise, the obligor is entitled to the defenses that it would have under the U.C.C. See UETA § 16(e); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(e). “[pretender lenders ignore this part admitting that the borrower has the same rights against the ultimate "owner" as they would have against the originator]

US Bank Refuses to talk: Arrest The Occupiers!

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Occupy Minneapolis protesters were arrested on in downtown Minneapolis Wednesday night, according to police.

Sgt. William Palmer says the arrests, all adult men, were made at 800 Nicollet Mall.

Fifteen others chose to leave prior to the arrests.

In an email released Wednesday night, Occupy Minneapolis representatives say the protesters, 3 total, were arrested while demanding negotiation from US Bank headquarters for homeowners in foreclosure.

“We are disappointed that US Bank chose to ignore thousands of signatures and their customers cries for help as the foreclosure continues to rip apart our communities. Today they decided they would rather have peaceful demonstrators arrested than sit down and work in good faith to find a solution,” said activist Ben Egerman.

About 50 people took part in the protest.

NY Times: Is the New Schneiderman Investigation Real?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Obama’s Credibility is on the Line

IT’S TIME TO CROSS EXAMINE YOUR EXPERTS, MR. PRESIDENT

Editor’s Note: Despite protests across the nation — in the streets, parks, courts and other venues, despite the well-published reports and proof published as to forged, fabricated, fraudulent and invalid documents, The Obama administration has been soft-pedaling both the rhetoric and the action from his administration to obtain justice for the perpetrators of crimes and restitution to the victims.

While we might cut him some slack for all that was on his plate, the time has long past where he should have been using independent judgment without deferring to “experts” from the industry, indeed the law firms and the financial firms that created the current mess with rippling and dangerous effects across the globe.

I don’t call on Obama or any Judge to read  and accept at face value the tens of thousands of pages on this blog alone containing copies of actual proof of crimes,  forgery, fabrication and invalid mortgage liens. But when public officials and presidents of title companies are saying the same thing, then you should at least consider that the charges in this blog and others like it might be true. That takes independent thinking.

If you don’t know how to cross examine your experts and advisers, Mr. Obama, then get some people who do know how to do that. Those experts will fold like a house of cards on the smallest amount of pressure exerted by questions that run to the reality of what happened instead of the spin.

To put it more bluntly: President Obama, you were  given a gift of high intellect and lofty rhetoric. It’s time to start using that intellect to analyze the data, not just remember what you were told about it. It is time to act on the fierce urgency of now, remember that? Neither the economy nor your political prospects will improve until you catch up to what most people already know — the Banks are the problem and we expect you to fix it.

A Mortgage Investigation

In the State of the Union address, President Obama promised a fresh investigation into mortgage abuses that led to the financial meltdown. The goal, he said, is to “hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”

Could this be it, finally? An investigation that results in clarity, big fines and maybe even jail time?

There is good reason to be skeptical. To date, federal civil suits over mortgage wrongdoing have been narrowly focused and, at best, ended with settlements and fines that are a fraction of the profits made during the bubble. There have been no criminal prosecutions against major players. Justice Department officials say that it reflects the difficulty of proving fraud — and not a lack of prosecutorial zeal. That is hard to swallow, given the scale of the crisis and the evidence of wrongdoing from private litigation, academic research and other sources.

This new investigation could be the real thing. Eric Schneiderman, the New York State attorney general, will be a co-chairman of the group, and he has refused to support a settlement being worked out between big banks most responsible for foreclosure abuses and federal agencies and some state attorneys general.

He rightly objected to the fact that in exchange for providing some $20 billion worth of mortgage relief — mainly by reducing the principal on homeowners’ loans — the banks wanted release from legal claims that have never been fully investigated, including those related to potential tax, trust and securities violations in mortgage loans.

In the past year, the Obama administration has pushed back against Mr. Schneiderman, even as other attorneys general also left the settlement talks. By choosing him now to help run the investigation, the president appears to be embracing the call for a much broader inquiry that, properly executed, could result in a far bigger settlement.

For now, the administration is saying that the new investigation and the settlement talks will both proceed. It would be better to settle with the banks only after officials have a full picture of any and all violations.

There are reasons to be wary. Some of the federal officials who will also be involved with the investigation — including Eric Holder Jr., the United States attorney general, and Lanny Breuer, the leader of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who will be a co-chairman — have not distinguished themselves in the pursuit of mortgage fraud.

To win and retain public trust, both the administration and all the group’s co-chairmen — there are also four other officials from the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service — must agree on several steps immediately.

The administration must ensure that the group has ample resources. The co-chairmen must hire a tough-as-nails prosecutor with a successful track record in financial fraud to drive the investigation forward. And the group must move quickly and vigorously, issuing subpoenas and filing cases. It is not starting from scratch; various agencies have all had separate investigations under way.

President Obama’s credibility is on the line. To restore public faith in the financial system, nothing less than a full investigation and full accountability will do.

 

Why all the robo-signing?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Note: The article below is very good at pointing to some of the reasons why robo-signing, surrogate signing, forgery, fabrication and fraud was a system option created by Banks to cover up their real activities. Her conclusions are all correct. I would only add that the fraud goes deeper, because the grey area created between the defective closing of the loan and the execution of false documents of transfer was used by the Banks to enlarge the derivative market to a point of no return.

We now have something close to a quadrillion dollars in nominal value derivatives in a world economy that has less than 1/10th that amount in actual cash. With world currency adding up to less than $100 trillion, the amount of quantitative easing (printing money) is running dangerously large and reminiscent of the hyper inflation in Germany that led to World War II. The situation is not quiet the same because the derivatives, in large part, cancel each other out as hedge bets going both ways. But the estimates are that some $50 trillion remain to be satisfied out of what was only a $50 trillion currency  supply when this started.

In plain language, the Banks have only started and will continue to drain from our collective economies until they are stopped. If they want their own country let them do it the old-fashioned way. Taking over the world financial system is a coup d’etat en masse. For America to allow this to continue is an invitation for other countries to retaliate against the U.S. in financial and other ways.

Why all the robo-signing?

January 24, 2012

Securitization and the shadow banking system

by Ellen Brown

(Extensively revised and updated Jan. 25) – The Wall Street Journal reported on Jan. 19 that the Obama administration was pushing heavily to get the 50 state attorneys general to agree to a settlement with five major banks in the “robo-signing” scandal.

The scandal involves employees signing names not their own, under titles they did not really have, attesting to the veracity of documents they had not really reviewed. Investigation reveals that it did not just happen occasionally but was an industry-wide practice, dating back to the late 1990s, and that it may have clouded the titles of millions of homes. If the settlement is agreed to, it will let Wall Street bankers off the hook for crimes that would land the rest of us in jail – fraud, forgery, securities violations and tax evasion.

To the president’s credit, however, he seems to have shifted his position on the settlement in response to protests before his State of the Union address. In his speech on Jan. 24, President Obama did not mention the settlement but announced instead that he would be creating a mortgage crisis unit to investigate wrongdoing related to real estate lending. “This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans,” he said.

The deeper question is why

Whether massive robo-signing occurred is no longer at issue. The question that still needs to be investigated is why it was being done. The alleged justification – that they were so busy they cut corners – hardly seems credible given the extent of the practice.

The robo-signing largely involved assignments of mortgage notes to mortgage servicers or trusts representing the investors who put up the loan money. Assignment was necessary to give the trusts legal title to the loans. But according to consumer attorneys April Charney and O. Max Gardner III, who have reviewed large numbers of these cases, the banks that originally signed the notes with the homeowners virtually never assigned them over to the trusts, as required by governing law and the terms of the trust documents. Robo-signing occurred long after the fact, and it was done routinely across the industry. That means it must have served some industry purpose. But what?

Here is a working hypothesis, suggested by Martin Andelman: Securitized mortgages are the “pawns” used in the pawn shop known as the “repo market.” “Repos” are overnight sales and repurchases of collateral. Yale economist Gary Gorton explains that repos are the “deposit insurance” for the shadow banking system, which is now larger than the conventional banking system and is necessary for the conventional system to operate. The problem is that repos require “sales,” which means the mortgage notes have to remain free to be bought and sold. The mortgages are left unendorsed so they can be used in this repo market.

The evolution of the shadow banking system

Gorton observes that there is a massive and growing demand for banking by large institutional investors – pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds – which have millions of dollars to park somewhere between investments. But FDIC insurance covers only up to $250,000. FDIC insurance was resisted in the 1930s by bankers and government officials and was pushed through as a populist movement: the people demanded it. What they got was enough insurance to cover the deposits of individuals and no more. Today, the large institutional investors want similar coverage. They want an investment that is secure, that provides them with a little interest, and that is liquid like a traditional deposit account, allowing quick withdrawal.

The shadow banking system evolved in response to this need, operating largely through the repo market. “Repos” are sales and repurchases of highly liquid collateral, typically Treasury debt or mortgage-backed securities – the securitized units into which American real estate has been ground up and packaged, sausage-fashion. The collateral is bought by a “special purpose vehicle” (SPV), which acts as the shadow bank. The investors put their money in the SPV and keep the securities, which substitute for FDIC insurance in a traditional bank. (If the SPV fails to pay up, the investors can foreclose on the securities.) To satisfy the demand for liquidity, the repos are one-day or short-term deals, continually rolled over until the money is withdrawn.

This money is used by the banks for other lending, investing or speculating. Gorton writes: “This banking system (the “shadow” or “parallel” banking system) – repo based on securitization – is a genuine banking system, as large as the traditional, regulated banking system. It is of critical importance to the economy because it is the funding basis for the traditional banking system. Without it, traditional banks will not lend, and credit, which is essential for job creation, will not be created.”

All behind the curtain of MERS

The housing shell game was made possible because it was all concealed behind an electronic smokescreen called MERS (an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.). MERS allowed houses to be shuffled around among multiple, rapidly changing owners while circumventing local recording laws. Title would be recorded in the name of MERS as a place holder for the investors, and MERS would foreclose on behalf of the investors. Payments would be received by the mortgage servicer, which was typically the bank that signed the mortgage with the homeowner. The homeowner usually thinks the servicer is the lender, but in fact it is an amorphous group of investors.

[Editor's Note: Failure to disclose all the parties in a mortgage loan transaction and the fees they received is a violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and a violation of deceptive lending laws in most states. The transaction is not complete until those disclosures are made. This isn't merely technical. It is intended to alert the borrowers that a loan without so many intermediaries feeding off the origination, they might find a better loan or more realistic loan elsewhere. That was the purpose of TILA and it is largely ignored by writers, the courts and law enforcement]

This all worked until courts started questioning whether MERS, which admitted that it was a mere conduit without title, had standing to foreclose. Courts have increasingly held that it does not.

Making matters worse for the servicing banks, Fannie Mae sent out a memo telling servicers that in order to be reimbursed under HAMP – a government loan modification program designed to help at-risk homeowners meet their mortgage payments – the servicers would have to produce the paperwork showing the loan had been assigned to the trust.

The hasty solution was a rash of assignments signed by an army of “robosigners,” to be filed in the public records. But the documents are patent forgeries, making a shambles of county title records.

Four thousand marched in Oakland Nov. 19, 2011, to protest fallout from the banking collapse – foreclosures, school closures and police attacks on dissent. – Photo: ©David Bacon

Complicating all this are tax issues. Since 1986, mortgage-backed securities have been issued to investors through SPVs called REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits). REMICs are designed as tax shelters; but to qualify for that status, they must be “static.” Mortgages can’t be transferred in and out once the closing date has occurred. The REMIC Pooling and Servicing Agreement typically states that any transfer significantly after the closing date is invalid.

Yet the newly robo-signed documents, which are required to begin foreclosure proceedings, are almost always executed long after the trust’s closing date. The whole business is quite complicated, but the bottom line is that title has been clouded not only by MERS but because the trusts purporting to foreclose do not own the properties by the terms of their own documents.

John O’Brien, register of deeds for the Southern Essex District of Massachusetts, calls it a “criminal enterprise.” On Jan. 18, he called for a full scale criminal investigation, including a grand jury to look into the evidence. He sent to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz over 30,000 documents recorded in the Salem Registry that he says are fraudulent.

From lending machines to borrowing machines

The bankers have engaged in what amounts to a massive fraud, not necessarily because they started out with criminal intent, but because they have been required to in order to come up with the collateral – in this case real estate – to back their loans. It is the way our system is set up: The banks are not really creating credit and advancing it to us, counting on our future productivity to pay it off, the way they once did under the deceptive but functional façade of fractional reserve lending. Instead, they are vacuuming up our money and lending it back to us at higher rates.

The banks are not really creating credit and advancing it to us, counting on our future productivity to pay it off, the way they once did. Instead, they are vacuuming up our money and lending it back to us at higher rates.

“Instead of lending into the economy,” says British money reformer Ann Pettifor, “bankers are borrowing from the real economy.” She wrote in the Huffington Post in October 2010: “[T]he crazy facts are these: Bankers now borrow from their customers and from taxpayers. They are effectively draining funds from household bank accounts, small businesses, corporations, government treasuries and from, e.g., the Federal Reserve. They do so by charging high rates of interest and fees, by demanding early repayment of loans, by illegally foreclosing on homeowners, and by appropriating and then speculating with trillions of dollars of taxpayer-backed resources.”

Not only has the system destroyed county title records, but it is highly vulnerable to bank runs and systemic collapse. In the shadow banking system, as in the old fractional reserve banking system, the collateral is being double-counted: It is owed to the borrowers and the depositors at the same time. This allows for expansion of the money supply, but bank runs can occur when the borrowers and the depositors demand their money at the same time. And unlike the conventional banking system, the shadow banking system is largely unregulated. It doesn’t have the backup of FDIC insurance to prevent bank runs.

That is what happened in September 2008 following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank. Gary Gorton explains that it was a run on the shadow banking system that caused the credit collapse that followed. Investors rushed to pull their money out overnight. LIBOR – the London interbank lending rate for short-term loans – shot up to around 5 percent. Since the cost of borrowing the money to cover loans was too high for banks to turn a profit, lending abruptly came to a halt.

Fixing the system

The question is how to eliminate this systemic risk. As noted by The Business Insider: “Regulate shadow banking more tightly, and you probably have to also provide government backstops. Shudder. Try to shut the thing down or restrict it and you suck credit out of the system, credit which much of the non-financial ‘real’ economy uses and needs.”

[Editor's Note: I strongly disagree. Shutting down the mega banks and resolving them under standard operating procedures of resolving insolvent banks,  which they are, would result in the release of equity and wealth back into the system on a scale that would provide 5-6 times the original stimulus package. The reserves the Banks are sitting on would come flooding back into the market as groups of banks culled from the more than 7,000 banks and credit unions operating safely under current law pick up the pieces. There is no reason other than scare tactics that would suggest that shutting down the derivatives market, as it is now constituted would result in a massive blow-out. The loss would be contained to the equity stakeholders (stockholders) of these entities instead of being spread out across the world to everyone.]

Banco do Brasil, a public-owned bank that operates as a commercial venture, is Latin America’s biggest bank by assets. It is doing so well it is eying possible acquisition targets and opening branches in the United States.

Interestingly, countries with strong public sector banking systems largely escaped the 2008 credit crisis. These include the BRIC countries – Brazil Russia, India and China – which contain 40 percent of the global population and are today’s fastest growing economies. They escaped because their public sector banks do not need to rely on repos and securitizations to back their loans. The banks are owned and operated by the ultimate guarantor – the government itself. The public sector banking model deserves further study.

A system that requires the slicing and dicing of mortgages behind an electronic smokescreen so they can be bought and sold as collateral for the pawn shop of the repo market is fraught with perils and is unsustainable.

Whatever the solution, a system that requires the slicing and dicing of mortgages behind an electronic smokescreen so they can be bought and sold as collateral for the pawn shop of the repo market is obviously fraught with perils and is unsustainable. Please contact your state attorney general and urge him or her not to go through with the robo-signing settlement, which will be granting immunity for crimes that are not yet fully known. Phone numbers are here. The surface of this great shadowy second banking system has barely been scratched. It needs a very thorough investigation.

Ellen Brown is an attorney in Los Angeles and president of the Public Banking Institute. In “Web of Debt,” her latest of 11 books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are WebofDebt.com and EllenBrown.com. She can be reached at ellenhbrown@gmail.com. The Bay View contributed some of the citations in this story.

 

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Sued by John Hancock For MBS Fraud

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Comment: If the financial institutions were lying to each other, committing civil and criminal fraud, how much of a stretch is it to think that they are lying to the Courts, lying to homeowners, and that they lied to homeowners who bought bogus loan products just like they lied to John Hancock who insured the bogus mortgage bonds based upon lies to the fund managers (investors) who served as the real lenders?

Why would ANYONE presume that the mortgages are valid liens, or that anyone other than the defrauded investors is entitled to any money from the borrowers, from the bailout, from insurance contracts, from CDS, and other credit “enhancements” all procured by fraud?

See Full Article on Bloomberg

JPMorgan Chase & Co. was sued by Manulife Financial Corp.’s John Hancock Life Insurance unit, which accused the bank of fraud in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities.

The lawsuit, filed today in New York state Supreme Court in Manhattan, seeks unspecified damages for losses of market value and principal and interest payments, as well as rescission and recovery of payment for the investments.

John Hancock bought the securities “in reliance on the false and misleading” statements made by the defendants, which include Bear Stearns & Co. and Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMUQ), both of which were acquired by JPMorgan, lawyers for the Boston-based insurer said in the lawsuit.

“Based on these material misrepresentations and omissions, plaintiffs purchased securities that were far riskier than had been represented, backed by mortgage loans worth significantly less than had been represented, and that had been made to borrowers who were much less creditworthy than had been represented,” attorneys for John Hancock said in the lawsuit.

Pools of home loans securitized into bonds were a central part of the housing bubble that helped send the U.S. into the biggest recession since the 1930s. The housing market collapsed, and the crisis swept up lenders and investment banks as the market for the securities evaporated.

Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan, didn’t immediately return a telephone message left at her office seeking comment on the lawsuit.

The case is John Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), 650195/2012, New York state Supreme Court (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Dolmetsch in New York at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net

 

Reuters: Calls Mount to Break Up Bank of America

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Weakness of BOA Poses Threat to Entire System

Editor’s Comment: When I proposed it 4 years ago, it was dismissed as the ravings of a fringe lunatic. Now it’s mainstream. BOA, Citi, JPM et al are in no better shape than the banks that were allowed to fail. In fact, they are in worse shape than some of them and should be allowed to fail because they are not viable businesses and represent a large black hole through which taxpayer money, debt and revenue is poured with regularity.

Now leading groups of consumer advocates, academics and economists are calling for the dismantling of the megabanks, some for the reasons expressed here, and some because from a specific financial perspective — it is too dangerous to leave a tottering giant riddled with cancerous lesions to lead the financial markets. It makes no sense. A “run on the bank” is almost inevitable and when it happens the result will be catastrophic, the group says, and I agree with them.

See Full Story on Reuters

(Reuters) – A group of consumer advocates, academics and economists want to end “too-big-to-fail” banks, starting with Bank of America Corp.

The group, led by consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, plans to file a petition with the Federal Reserve Board and other regulators on Wednesday asking them to carve the bank into simpler, safer pieces.

The Fed and the coalition of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council have the authority to take such action under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law passed in 2010, the group said.

Nearly two dozen professors and groups have joined the effort.

… the petition is a dramatic criticism of regulators who have so far done little to shrink giant banks after the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

“Bank of America currently poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability by any reasonable definition of that phrase,” the 24-page petition said.

It said Bank of America, the nation’s second-largest bank, is too large and complex, and that its financial condition could deteriorate rapidly at any moment, potentially causing the market to lose confidence in the bank.

“An ensuing run on the bank could cause a devastating financial crisis,” the petition said.

David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, said a lot of the group’s concerns apply to other large banks, but that Bank of America is the institution most exposed to the housing crisis.

“Regulators need to get ahead of this and act proactively to reform Bank of America,” Arkush said.

Bank of America has had a tough time emerging from the financial crisis, particularly because of mortgage losses tied to its 2008 Countrywide Financial purchase.

The bank’s stock slid 58 percent last year as investors expressed disappointment with the speed of a turnaround and fear about the bank’s ability to comply with new capital rules.

Bank of America, the Fed and the Treasury declined to comment on the planned petition.

Some community groups decided to pass on signing the entreaty. Janis Bowdler, an official with the National Council of La Raza, said the letter was distributed on a list-serve for a coalition called Americans for Financial Reform, but her group decided not to join up.

“I don’t want to downplay the concerns that were raised,” said Bowdler, “but for now, a strong housing market and cleaning up Countrywide is the priority for us.”

NCLR is a national Hispanic civil rights organization. It receives financial support from Bank of America.

The Center for Responsible Lending, which has been critical of banks for mortgage lending practices, has also declined to participate. CRL president Mike Calhoun declined comment.

Bank of America was one of the large banks that received a government bailout during the financial crisis. It paid back the $45 billion in 2009, but analysts say it still needs more capital to absorb mortgage-related losses and to meet new international standards.

(Reporting By Rick Rothacker; Additional reporting by Dave Clarke in Washington and David Henry in New York; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

 

AG Settlement is Not Done and Won’t Do Anything.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Note: First let me answer the questions that have been pouring in — all asking the same thing. The answer is NO, the settlement won’t bar you from taking action to defend your home, sue the parties who defrauded you, quiet title or anything else UNLESS you accept the settlement and sign a release.
Frankly, the settlement, if it ever comes to pass (Delaware is out now which is a signal that the Vice-President’s son, as attorney general isn’t going for it) might not do much else except perhaps set some bottom of the barrel standards below which banks and servicers promise not to go. These promises most often have proven illusory — with banks committing the same acts, the same violations and the same arrogant display of raw power that they were using before.
There is nothing in the settlement that will stem the tide of foreclosures. But the Obama’s new commission is aimed at exactly that. The pundits missed it. They are talking about the new commission as though it is a repeat of the old commission and that everything is going to be business a usual. I don’t think so, and the appointment of New York’s Attorney General Schneiderman underscores my point.
Up until now, the focus has been on foreclosures and that is exactly what the Banks wanted. By misdirecting out attention to the “paperwork” in foreclosures, they distract us from the real issues presented in examining securitization itself as it was actually practiced, and the process of mortgage origination, as it was actually practiced. THAT is where the meat is.
The new commission will have an opportunity —- unless stopped for political reasons — to reveal the actual events, rather than picking at the carcass at what had been a plan of securitization. It will also have the opportunity to reveal mortgage origination practices in which the real creditor was intentionally hidden from the borrower — a violation of the Federal and State lending laws. And it will reveal the actual money trail which we will find did not even come close to conforming with the securitization documents ( the closing with investor lenders) or the mortgage documents (the closing with the borrowers).
If actual tangible relief comes from government action it will come from this commission. Everything else looks forward to stopping this from happening again through regulation. The new commission looks backward at what happened and can reveal, if they want it to, the many violations of statutes, rules and regulations in the securitization of loans, the collecting of money into pools, the funding of the loans, and the resulting need to create even more violations by fabricating forged documents after the loans became “non-performing” allegedly transferring the non-performing loans into the pools using those fabricated documents.
No investors on Earth would have accepted non-performing loans as a basis for their investment. The very idea of transferring loans in default into the pools is absurd. It’s not just that it violates the prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement, it is that the practice of transferring the loans after default doesn’t make any sense. Thus there is no rational business reason to do so and the investors would all say and do all say they don’t want them.
By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer

A proposed $25 billion settlement between five big banks, state attorneys general and the Obama administration may help resolve some of the thornier legal issues surrounding the mortgage mess that caused the housing market to collapse.

It will do relatively little to stop the ongoing wave of home foreclosures or revive the deeply depressed housing market, however.

Talks got underway more than a year ago after a series of private lawsuits focused national attention on an outbreak of “robo-signing” and other shoddy and fraudulent document processing practices by mortgage servicers foreclosing on homes. Most of the key issues that have sidelined past tentative agreements have been addressed, according to a source close to the talks who was not authorized to discuss the proposal.

But a final agreement could still be weeks away. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said Monday that some terms still have to be resolved. He made clear that the parties still have significant work ahead of them.

“We have not yet reached an agreement with the nation’s five largest servicers, and we won’t reach a settlement any time this week,” he said in a statement.

The deal would require banks to devote roughly $17 billion of the total settlement to various types of loan modifications for homeowners. Rather than paying that amount in cash, lenders would receive a series of credit toward that amount based on a complex formula that would assign different levels of credit to different types of modifications. Decisions about which loans to modify would be left to bankers.

The program would apply largely to the relatively small universe of home loans owned outright by the five lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC). Loans held by government-controlled Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac — some 60 percent of the 31 million U.S. home loans outstanding — would not be covered in the deal.

Another $5 billion would be set aside to help support state foreclosure relief programs. A portion of those funds would be used to pay homeowners who can demonstrate they were victims of abusive or fraudulent foreclosure practices. Those awards would average about $1,800. The system for arbitrating those claims and distributing those checks has yet to be worked out, according to the source close to the talks, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the proposal publicly.

Another $3 billion would be applied to a program to refinance mortgages at lower rates.

If enough states go along, lenders would emerge largely unscathed from the settlement, according to Capital Economics housing analyst Paul Diggle.

“The total size of the scheme is unlikely to give lenders too many sleepless nights,” he said.

To put the $25 billion settlement in perspective, the amount represent about three-tenths of a percent of the lenders’ total assets, said Diggle. Because much of the settlement amount represents paper credits against loan modifications that may already be underway, the bottom-line impact would be even less than $25 billion.

The impact on pending foreclosures would also be very small. Diggle figures that as many as 100,000 borrowers could be helped by the settlement, a fraction of the 2.3 million homes in the foreclosure pipeline.

The program would help some “underwater ” homeowners who now owe more than their home is worth, cutting their balances by an average of $20,000. But the overall impact of $17 billion in reduced loan balances would be far too small to help revive the housing market. There are currently some 11 million borrowers with an average shortfall of roughly $65,000 — or a total of $700 billion — in “negative equity,” according to the latest data from CoreLogic.

As details of the settlement have emerged, critics have argued the proposal lets bankers off the hook too easily for the mortgage mess they created with sloppy underwriting during the housing boom.

“The reported settlement terms would amount to a slap on the wrist, allowing banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything,” said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown in a letter to White House officials involved in the talks.

President Barack Obama may tout the settlement in his State of the Union address Tuesday, after his administration has been pressuring state officials to wrap up a deal. Some consumer advocates say the White House, eager to broker a settlement, has supported terms more likely to win the bankers’ approval.

“The Obama administration has been has been more concerned with settling quickly than with settling in a way that moves the ball forward for homeowners,” said Diane Thomsen, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

Critics of the deal argue that, while it may spur lenders to act more quickly in the short term, it also creates a cap on the amount of mortgage relief they’re required to provide.

Ironically, a settlement could also have the perverse effect of speeding up the foreclosure pipeline. In October 2010, major banks temporarily suspended foreclosures to address complaints of widespread deceptive foreclosure practices, creating a backlog.

“A resolution of the robo-signing scandal leaves the way open for banks to re-start foreclosure proceedings that were temporarily halted after the scandal first came to light,” said Diggle.

It’s unlikely that all 50 states will sign off on the deal. Frustrated with the progress of the talks, California officials said in September they would not agree to a settlement. New York, Delaware, Nevada and Massachusetts, sued the five banks in December over deceptive foreclosure practices after all but abandoning settlement talks.

The settlement would provide strict guidelines to address those complaints, according to the source close to the settlement talks. Abusive foreclosure procedures have already been targeted by federal bank regulators. Last year, the Federal Reserve issued a series of “cease and desist” orders and the Office of the Controller of the Currency conducted a comprehensive review of the worst practices. In April, the OCC launched an enforcement action against eight large mortgage servicers monitoring those practices and instituting reforms.

Among the abuses regulators found were so-called “dual track processing” in which lenders working with a homeowner to modify a mortgage continue with legal proceedings to foreclose. In other cases, lenders had foreclosed without properly showing they had the right to do so.

As state courts continue to cite lenders for faulty documentation, some of the attorneys general don’t think those efforts by federal regulators have fixed the problem. On Tuesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said she plans to continue her lawsuit, which claims that lenders are foreclosing illegally on homeowners in her state without properly demonstrating that they held the mortgage.

“Our pending lawsuit seeks real accountability from the banks and real relief for homeowners,” she said in a statement. “We also need assurances that eligible Massachusetts borrowers will get relief and consistent treatment from the banks.”

 

Ethics Violation Against Northwest Trustee in Oregon

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Comment: It’s a gutsy move. The lawyer for the newspapers filed the complaint alleging illegal mark-ups in pricing. That filing indirectly attacks their own advertising revenues. What they are going to find is that the “trustees” are not trustees at all and where paid off to keep quiet.

Trustees are routinely “substituted” in robo style. That is because the original trustee would never do what the pretender lender wanted them to do. The old Trustee would exercise due diligence and demand some sort of proof that the “new creditor” actually owned the loan and that the loan was in default. That would create all sorts of problems for the pretenders, inasmuch as they don’t have the proof — because the proof doesn’t exist. The proof doesn’t exist because they don’t own the loan and the only way they can pretend to be the new creditor is with fabricated and forged documents.

So a new “Trustee” is either created or controlled by the pretenders with the understanding that they will do as they are told to do by the pretenders and not as the law requires. In exchange, the Trustee is given carte blanche to charge whatever they want making extra profits for allowing the pretenders to “rent” the professional license of the “new” trustee. Those extra fees — like the extra fees made by all the other intermediaries and conduits in the fake “securitization” chain, is the economic incentive to break the law, violate ethics and defraud the courts, borrowers and investors.

As the facts emerge, the attorney who played “trustee” will be shown to have dodged the requirements all the way around — so much so that the appointment of Northwest will be immediate reason to inquire as to whether their was an actual trustee at all as required by Oregon statutes. Thus the limited grievance filed by the gutsy attorney for the newspapers, is merely the tip of the iceberg.

This action is on the heals of hundreds of grievances filed against notaries, appraisers and real estate brokers for failing to comply with the ethical standards of their professions. The fact that the target is finally a lawyer, ups the ante quite a bit.

Perhaps, when all else has failed, prosecutors will do the right thing.

From oregonlive.com

By Jeff Manning, The Oregonian

foreclosure for sale sign 2007 denverThe Associated Press: A sign of the times across the country as foreclosures hit coast to coast.
A lawyer representing The Bulletin of Bend and the Redmond Spokesman  newspapers has filed an ethics complaint with the Oregon State Bar against an executive of the Northwest’s largest foreclosure trustee, accusing the company of secretly marking up the cost of foreclosure legal ads to its lender clients.

Michael Dillard, of the Karnopp Petersen law firm in Bend, filed the complaint last week against David Fennell, a lawyer and a principal owner of Northwest Trustee Services, which by its own account has handled more than 250,000 foreclosures.

Dillard alleges that Northwest Trustee and its advertising operation, FEI, charged its clients an undisclosed 18 percent premium over the actual price. These “deceptive and dishonest” tactics, Dillard said, allowed FEI to collect from its clients about $360,000 more than it actually paid for the foreclosure notices published in the Redmond newspaper just since 2009.

Those costs were then presumably passed on by banks to homeowners and others, Dillard said.

Stephen Routh, CEO of Northwest Trustee Services, denied that FEI was charging a secret premium. “The markup was fully disclosed to it customers,” Routh said. “It’s how they make a profit.”

The complaint is intriguing on several levels. Since the economic crash of 2008 let loose a tidal wave of home foreclosures, the financial industry has been accused many times over by homeowners of improperly and fraudulently repossessing homes. But in this case, one of Northwest Trustee’s own vendors alleges wrongdoing, with 26 pages of painstaking detail backing up the claim.

The complaint puts Western Communications, owner of the Redmond Spokesman, The Bulletin and a handful of other newspapers, in a delicate position. It is accusing one of its largest advertisers of underhanded billing practices even as the newspapers’ parent company struggles through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The Bulletin published a lengthy story Tuesday about Northwest Trustee’s alleged overcharging.

The Oregonian published a story about Northwest Trustee Jan. 14, which focused on the company’s emergence during the foreclosure boom as one of the region’s largest newspaper advertisers and its decision to begin buying newspapers outright.

Markups add up

Northwest Trustee enjoys particular clout in central Oregon. The once-high-flying resort area is now one of Oregon’s foreclosure hotbeds.

The foreclosure disaster contained a big upside for Western Communications, which calls itself WesCom. Northwest Trustee ran all its foreclosure legal notices in the Redmond Spokesman.

“They’re one of our largest advertisers,” said John Costa, editor in chief. “It’s a significant piece of money.”

Through a convoluted series of events last spring, WesCom came to suspect that FEI may be charging its lender clients more for legal notices than it was actually paying.

It wasn’t a lot of money. Though the Spokesman generally charged just over $1,000 for the legal notice ads required by Oregon law, WesCom suspected FEI billed $1,185.

Fueling its suspicion were requests from FEI that WesCom continue to bill the lower rate but list the higher rate on invoices and other paperwork between the two companies.

WesCom hired Dillard to investigate. Last spring, according to his ethics complaint, he found evidence –two bills from Northwest Trustee to Sterling Savings Bank – that backed up WesCom’s hunch. Northwest Trustee charged Sterling the higher rate – $1,185. Sterling declined to comment for this story.

Editor has hunch

Costa decided the billing dispute had wider implications and was worthy of a story. In December, he assigned Bulletin reporter Heidi Hagemeier to investigate.

Hagemeier found additional bills from Northwest Trustee to U.S. Bancorp. Here too, Northwest Trustee charged the higher rate. One invoice listed Fennell as “payee.”

It is, of course, common for businesses to include in their customer bills a markup for subcontractor charges. A home remodeling general contractor, for instance, will often charge the homeowner a surcharge on top of the bills from plumbers, electricials and other subcontractors.

The key difference in the case of Northwest Trustee, Dillard argued, is disclosure, or the lack thereof. “When your remodeling contractor marked up the subcontractors’ bills, he did not falsely represent to you that the plumbers bill was $600 when in fact it was really only $550,” he said.

2004 case

Bar ethical rules hold lawyers to a particularly stringent standard, as Fennell learned firsthand in 2004. Then, the Washington State Bar determined that a company within the Northwest Trustee umbrella was charging clients a 50 to 100 percent markup for posting foreclosure notices at people’s homes without disclosing it.

The markup was small – about $50 to $100. But both state bars deemed the undisclosed markup dishonest and suspended Fennell’s license a year.

It’s dangerous, of course, for WesCom to go public with its suspicions about one of its largest advertisers. The down economy and a dispute with a main lender, Bank of America, prompted WesCom to file for Chapter 11 reorganization in August.

“It wasn’t tempting at all to say ‘We’re just going to continue to take their money,’” Costa said. “We couldn’t be complicit in that. We have an obligation to tell the public.”

Northwest Trustee’s Routh said the ethics complaint is another hardball tactic in a strained relationship. Routh and Fennell started up the Oregon Legal Journal in 2009 as an alternative for its own foreclosure notices, a move that threatened WesCom’s Deschutes County foreclosure legal notice business.

And while it’s fashionable to bash the foreclosure business, Routh said, it’s important to note that newspapers have not hesitated to profit off the trend. The more than 2,000 FEI foreclosure notices the Spokesman has run since 2009 generated more than $2 million in revenue.

On Jan. 17, Dillard filed his bar complaint. He accused Fennell of “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the practice of law.”

Dillard and Costa said they believe the markups they allege Northwest Trustee was involved in could be widespread and “add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars of secret profits in central Oregon and perhaps millions of dollars elsewhere.”

– Jeff Manning

 

Too Big To Jail: Thousands Protest Around Nation Against “Settlement” Proposed by Obama and AG’s

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Protesters Demonstrating in Front of Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Meeting in Chicago

By: David Dayen, firedoglake.com

Protesters have gathered outside a meeting taking place in Chicago today between officials with the Obama Administration and some state Attorneys General or members of their staff, aimed at reaching agreement on a low-ball settlement with leading banks over foreclosure fraud.  The proposed settlement would give homeowners a pittance in exchange for a broad release of liability from prosecution for the banks.

About eighty members of various community and faith groups in Illinois, including national groups like MoveOn.org, National People’s Action and The New Bottom Line, have gathered outside the Chicago O’Hare Hilton Hotel. They are holding a press conference there and protesting the proposed settlement. Later in the day, the protesters plan to visit the local offices of Illinois AG Lisa Madigan, who is on the executive committee which negotiated the settlement, and the Obama for America 2012 campaign headquarters.

The protesters object to the low dollar value of the settlement, estimated at $20-$25 billion, when there is currently $700 billion worth of negative equity – money owed on mortgages less than the value of the home – in America. They also object to the fact that there has been no meaningful investigation into the depths of foreclosure fraud by the Department of Justice or any federal regulator. Further, they oppose a broad release of civil and/or criminal liability for the banks for their conduct at all levels of the housing market. [EDITOR'S NOTE: SOMEHOW THE $700 BILLION FIGURE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. I did the math. The figure is ten times that at $7 trillion].

The proposed deal will get circulated to the banks today. Many of the holdout AG offices did not send a representative to the Chicago meeting. But they have the information on the settlement, and for a variety of reasons the events of the next 24 hours are seen as consequential. There are even rumors, according to Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), of an announcement on the settlement appearing in tomorrow’s State of the Union Address. “They have not said anything to us on the State of the Union, but there’s a sense that they may do something,” added Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), an opponent of the settlement on a conference call today.

Miller ticked off a number of unknowns surrounding the settlement. “What investigation has there actually been? What claims are being released?” Miller Asked. “Where did this $20 billion number come from for damages? What mortgages does this apply to? Does it apply to securitized mortgages that the banks don’t really own? Will they be able to pass on the losses for their own misconduct? Which homeowners get relief? If it’s just a dollar figure that the banks have to hit, will they pick the most expensive houses for relief and increase resentment against those who get the breaks in America?”

Brown, Miller and the coalition arguing for a “fair settlement” want a thorough investigation, with the inclusion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (at this point not a part of this settlement). “It’s hard to know what a meaningful settlement would look like when we don’t have full disclosure,” Brown said. “Instead of a thorough investigation and criminal prosecutions, we’re talking about not much more than a slap on the wrist. The banks are not just too big to fail, they’re too big to jail.”

Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org, a key coalition partner, cited new polling showing that found that 70% of Americans believe the banks have not been investigated enough on their foreclosure practices, and that 60% of those polls would be less likely to support the President for re-election if he gave the banks a sweetheart deal. By contrast, the President would gain support if he announced a real investigation into Wall Street’s practices. MoveOn has forwarded a petition asking for an investigation, and has acquired over 360,000 signatures.

Obama’s State of the Economy Address

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S COMMENT AND ANALYSIS: All efforts to date, with singular exceptions, seem to be directed at “settlements” that give short shrift to what was done to millions of homeowners, investors, states cities and towns. Pension funds have been hit hard, making it difficult to meet their obligations and causing some to tell pensioners that their pensions are going to be reduced or even eliminated.  The focus seems to be on stopping these criminal practices in the future. You robbed a convenience store? Just don’t do it again and give back 1% of the money you stole. You killed the proprietor? Don’t do it again.

Nobody is happy about the proposed settlement being  pushed by the White House except those attorney generals and justice department officials that would rather roll over than investigate and bring those who  committed criminal acts to justice. Anyone who was defrauded or otherwise destroyed by this bank-imposed mess deserves restitution — not some hollow promise that the Banks won’t do it again. That is promise that is never going to be kept and it offends the sensibilities of 80% of Americans.

Watching the political trail, observers note that politicians have largely turned a deaf ear to history in favor of what appears to them as good politics. Republicans barely mention the defective mortgage process, the fraudulent sale of bogus securities to institutional investors (i.e.., the managed funds that control our pension and savings), while Democrats wring their hands in impotence avoiding the issue.

The problem is money. Banks are controlling the narrative. They have the money to pay Newt Gingrich $1.6 million+ to help thwart investigations and pass legislation that keeps management safe from prosecution.

Politicians are out of touch with what is happening on the ground where people are looking to government to solve real problems instead of scoring what they think are public relations victories. Those victories will translate into defeat in November.

Polls show that the voting public doesn’t think the President, the Congress or the Courts have a clue about the reality of this situation. The reality is people hate the Banks, hate the bailouts, and hate the politicians who facilitated the bailouts. The truth is that people are suspicious of politicians and don’t believe that anyone new in office will do anything different than anyone claiming incumbency. People fear the future because they can see clearly that nobody is doing anything about it.

Gingrich surged in South Carolina and may continue his surge to become the Republican nominee for President. That was because he talked tough and gave some lip service to the plight of homeowners in foreclosure and homeowners who are walking away from their mortgages in record numbers — something approaching 50% of all foreclosures this year will come from people who are unwilling to pay for the the greed of Wall Street, adding millions more foreclosed homes to a housing market that is already depressed and wrecked beyond all recognition.

The answer is clearly that those who were robbed are due, under our existing set of laws, to get restitution — return of their money, their homes, their pensions and their lives. It is unacceptable for the Banks to keep any part of their ill-gotten gains.

The atmosphere is ripe for third party and little known candidates to run for offices that are essentially vacant or outright “occupied” by the Banks. Running against the Banks and for American jobs using all practical means at our disposal, running to bring back the exceptional character of American innovation and power in the marketplace of commerce and in the marketplace of ideas, will be seen as running for the American dream, whereas all others will be seen as running against it or they will be seen as indifferent to it.

This year, 2012, is a watershed year, if we make it that way. If the candidates come forward who want nothing except a better America, the voters will respond. As for the rest of the politicians, I won’t miss them, will you?

Obama May Highlight Foreclosure Settlement in State of the Union

by Jon Prior

President Obama could mention in the State of the Union address Tuesday new developments in the negotiation between mortgage servicers and government officials, according to two members of Congress.

“There seems to be evidence that he may do something,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, in a conference call with reporters Monday, “and we hope ‘the something’ is launching a wider investigation.”

Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., said rumors were floating around Washington that the president may even announce the settlement, though he couldn’t confirm that. The White House did not immediately comment. However, a spokesman for Iowa AG Tom Miller, said not to expect a full announcement this week.

In October 2010, evidence surfaced of mortgage servicers, processors and attorneys signing foreclosure affidavits en masse and without a proper review of the loan file as required by law in judicial states. Since those robo-signing allegations surfaced, negotiations to settle the case have labored between the banks, the remaining state attorneys general, the Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Bank officials have said few if any foreclosures wrongfully took place as a result of the documentation issues. Ally Financial (GJM: 22.16 -0.18%) CEO Michael Carpenter has been the most vocal, even saying in a recent call with investors that he was willing to fight the government in court if the terms did not match what he believed the violations to be.

The president may be feeling the pressure from his base to make this the wide-scale crackdown on Wall Street that Americans have been calling for since the financial crisis struck in 2007.

Justin Ruben, executive director of the progressive group MoveOn.org, said Monday in a recent survey of previous Obama supporters, 60% said they would be unlikely to help him this November should the settlement become a “sweetheart deal for servicers.”

SEE FULL ARTICLE ON HOUSINGWIRE.COM

Write to Jon Prior.

Follow him on Twitter @JonAPrior.

ALABAMA Appelate Court Deals Death Blow to Thousands of Foreclosures

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

 EDITOR’S NOTE: “Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings. Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings,

With those words tens of thousands of foreclosures, if not millions, are cast into doubt and, in Alabama — arguably the most conservative state in the nation, thousands of foreclosures can be overturned after eviction, after the sale at “auction” because if the creditor did not have proof of the sale of the loan (including payment, to complete the transaction, then they couldn’t very well initiate any Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, or submit a “credit bid” at auction, simply because they were not the creditor.

This is why homeowners, investors and banks looking to refinance property that was ever subject to claims of securitization and foreclosure must have the information contained in our COMBO title and Securitization report (see above). That house you think you lost or are in the process of losing or are in the process of buying or are in the process of refinancing needs to have these questions cleared up before anyone can proceed.

PATTERSON v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
Decided January 20, 2012.


On appeal, the Pattersons assert, among other things, that the trial court erred in determining that the foreclosure was valid. While the Pattersons’ appeal was pending, this court delivered its decision in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC. BAC then held a foreclosure sale at which it purchased Sturdivant’s house, and the auctioneer executed a foreclosure deed purporting to convey title to Sturdivant’s house to BAC. BAC was assigned the mortgage the same day as the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, BAC brought an ejectment action against Sturdivant, claiming that it owned title to her house by virtue of the foreclosure deed. After the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of BAC, Sturdivant appealed to the supreme court, which transferred her appeal to this court. We held that BAC lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage because it had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings and that, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid. We further held that, because the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed were invalid, BAC did not acquire legal title to Sturdivant’s house through the foreclosure deed and thus BAC did not own an interest in the house when it commenced its ejectment action. We further held that, because BAC did not own any interest in Sturdivant’s house when it commenced its ejectment action, BAC did not have standing to bring that action and, consequently, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Because BAC did not have standing to bring its ejectment action and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment action, we held that the judgment of the trial court was void, and we vacated that judgment. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismissed the appeal.

In the case now before us, GMAC Mortgage, like BAC in Sturdivant, had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated foreclosure proceedings. Consequently, under our holding in Sturdivant, GMAC Mortgage lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage when it initiated the foreclosure proceedings, and, therefore, the foreclosure and the foreclosure deed upon which GMAC based it ejectment claim are invalid. Moreover, under our holding in Sturdivant, because GMAC Mortgage did not own any interest in the house, it lacked standing to bring its ejectment action against the Pattersons. Because GMAC Mortgage lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over the ejectment action. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is void and is hereby vacated. Moreover, because a void judgment will not support an appeal, we dismiss this appeal. Id.

JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pittman, Thomas, and Moore, JJ., concur.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, with writing.

Bryan, J., dissents, with writing.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result.

 

State by State Foreclosure Procedures

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: All non-judicial states have a provision that allows for judicial foreclosure. It is one of the things that is often overlooked. My point has always been that the non-judicial statutes are unconstitutional only if they don’t allow judicial foreclosures and especially if the foreclosing party is allowed to prevail in a case in which the forecloser would otherwise not prevail in a judicial foreclosure. the trustee in non-judicial foreclosure case is a substitute for the court and must act with due diligence — another fact that is often overlooked.

The implication is that the trustee must act some independence for the protection of both the debtor and creditor. That is impossible when the new creditor appearing on the scene essentially files a substitution of trustee in which the “creditor” is appointed as trustee — a very common scenario that is not apparent on its face. The substitute trustee is often not a trustee and doesn’t qualify because it is controlled or even owned (Recontrust owned by BOA) by the new putative creditor.

The reference to “primarily” simply means that the rules of non-judicial foreclosure or the complexities of the case  make it such that a judicial foreclosure is the only way to resolve the issues of the case. Also commercial foreclosures are usually only allowed as judicial. Check the State statutes and see what they provide — the conditions under which non-judicial is permitted and the conditions under which judicial is mandated.

State by State Foreclosure Procedures

This is a general guide only, laws change and you need to check your state statutes for accurate, up to date procedures. Foreclosure type will most often be either judicial or non-judicial, if you have a specific question about a state process, you can ask it on the discussion board. Months to foreclose include the legal minimum required and the probable time length once foreclosure has begun. Deficiency judgments are available in some states if the lender loses money through the foreclosure process, if it is not practical for the lender to enforce a judgment, it will be listed. Homeowner redemption after foreclosure is possible in some states, the time periods are listed where available.

STATE TYPE OF FORECLOSURE MONTHS TO FORECLOSE
MINIMUM/EXPECTED
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT REDEMPTION PERIOD
Alabama Primarily Non-Judicial 1/3 Possible and Practical 12 Months
Alaska Both 3/4 Not Practical None
Arizona Both 3/4 Not Practical None
Arkansas Both 4/5 Possible and Practical None
California Primarily Non-Judicial 4/4 Not Practical None
Colorado Primarily Non-Judicial 2/5 Possible and Practical None
Connecticut Judicial/Strict 5/6 Possible and Practical None
Delaware Judicial 3/7 Possible and Practical None
District of Columbia Non-Judicial 2/4 Possible and Practical None
Florida Judicial 5/5 Possible and Practical None
Georgia Primarily Non-Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Hawaii Primarily Non-Judicial 3/4 Not Practical None
Idaho Non-Judicial 5/6 Possible and Practical None
Illinois Judicial 7/10 Possible and Practical None
Indiana Judicial 5/7 Possible and Practical 3 Months
Iowa Both 5/6 Not Practical 6 Months,if judicial
Kansas Judicial 4/4 Possible andPractical 6-12 Months
Kentucky Judicial 6/5 Possible and Practical None
Louisiana Judicial 2/6 Possible and Practical None
Maine Primarily Judicial 6/10 Possible and Practical None
Maryland Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Massachusetts Non-Judicial 3/4 Possible and Practical None
Michigan Both 2/2 Possible and Practical 6 Months
Minnesota Both 2/3 Not Practical 6 Months
Mississippi Primarily Non-Judicial 2/3 Possible and Practical None
Missouri Primarily Non-Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Montana Primarily Non-Judicial 5/5 Not Practical None
Nebraska Judicial 5/6 Possible and Practical None
Nevada Primarily Non-Judicial 4/4 Possible and Practical None
New Hampshire Primarily Non-Judicial 2/3 Possible and Practical None
New Jersey Judicial 3/10 Possible and Practical 10 Days
New Mexico Judicial 4/6 Possible and Practical None
New York Judicial 4/8 Possible and Practical None
North Carolina Non-Judicial 2/4 Possible and Practical None
North Dakota Judicial 3/5 Not Possible 60 Days
Ohio Judicial 5/7 Possible and Practical None
Oklahoma Primarily Judicial 4/7 Possible and Practical None
Oregon Non-Judicial 5/5 Not Practical None
Pennsylvania Judicial 3/9 Not Practical None
Rhode Island Both 2/3 Possible and Practical None
South Carolina Judicial 6/6 Not Practical None
Tennessee Non-Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Texas Non-Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Utah Both 4/5 Possible and Practical None
Vermont Both 7/10 Possible and Practical None
Virginia Non-Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Washington Non-Judicial 4/5 Not Practical None
West Virginia Non-Judicial 2/2 Possible and Practical None
Wisconsin Judicial varies/10 Not Practical None
Wyoming Non-Judicial 2/3 Possible and Practical 3 Months

 

Friends of Angelo Investigation Goes Dark

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: In a scheme this blatantly disregarding law and common sense and a scheme that was so large as to constitute the largest economic crime in human history, it is unlikely that the “friends of Angela are limited to what we know now. My guess is that the list grew longer and longer and touched more and more people that were given “gifts” of preferential mortgage treatment, including reductions of principal. 

That the scheme went suddenly dark is usually a sign that some of these unknown people used their power and influence to kill the investigation or, unlikely, that indictments are near.

SEE FULL ARTICLE ON HOUSINGWIRE.COM

VIP MORTGAGE PROGRAM INVESTIGATION GOES DARK

by Jon Prior

An investigation by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., into the Countrywide VIP loan program that allegedly gave connected policymakers in Washington sweetened mortgages has become increasingly hushed in recent weeks.

The “Friends of Angelo” investigation has been waged over three years now. Previous subpoenaed information from members of Congress went to ethics committees in both chambers. But Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and former Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., were cleared by the committees of knowingly taking any such loans from Countrywide. Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., denied any wrongdoing as well.

“We’re beyond ethics here,” Issa said during House oversight committee hearing September 2009 chaired by Cummings. “We are at a point where the American people at least should know who they gave money to or benefit to, how they did it, and so on.”

Frustrated with a lack of action from the committee — chaired by Towns at the time — Issa requested the panel hold hearings on the allegations rather than deferring to the ethics committee.

In February, as committee chair, Issa issued a subpoena for documents, emails and other information from Bank of America (BAC: 7.07 +1.58%), which bought Countrywide in 2008, regarding past dealings with members of Congress.

But in December, Issa went to the ethics committee with his findings and did not publicly disclose the names of the four lawmakers he found to be allegedly linked to the VIP program. Two Republicans from California, Reps. Howard McKeon and Elton Gallegly, acknowledged being two of the four Issa mentioned to the ethics committee.

No hearings have been scheduled over the findings, and Democrats claim the discovery of Republican links to the program prompted less public proceedings. But a spokesman for the committee said recent revelations have not altered the course of the investigation at all. With a Republican majority in the House, Issa as the committee’s chair can issue subpoenas and conduct interviews on his own accord, the spokesman said, changing the dynamic from when Issa needed to publicly call on members to move the investigation forward.

A spokesperson for McKeon said in a statement that McKeon was “shocked and angry to hear this” and denied ever meeting or speaking to former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.

In a letter to Issa Tuesday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., reversed his earlier stances on the matter and called for more public disclosures from the investigation, even revealing some details from the subpoena. Documents gathered from the investigation show communications between Countrywide executives Stephen Brandt and Maritza Cruz as they prepared McKeon’s documents. Both Cruz’s and McKeon’s signatures are on the documents, according to Cummings.

Cummings also revealed an internal email at Countrywide from Brandt that alleges Mozilo’s role in approving McKeon’s loan.

“Per Angelo — ‘take off 1 point, no garbage fees, approve the loan and make it a no doc,’” Brandt wrote to staff, according to Cummings’ letter.

In the letter, the Maryland representative also said evidence from the subpoenas show Mike Farrell, a former lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, directed McKeon to the Countrywide VIP program.

A spokesperson for McKeon issued the following statement in response to Cummings’ letter: “Mr. McKeon is committed to transparency on this — he believes that the actions of Countrywide should be looked into and wants to get to the bottom of what Countrywide did to his loan

Write to Jon Prior.

Follow him on Twitter @JonAPrior.

Occupy Targets Banks, Courts and Corporations

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: I wonder if the media, politicians and pundits realize how these multiple Occupy events are affecting the political narrative this year. The fact that Occupy protests have found their way into some stump speeches and the responses from people surveyed shows clearly that the anger, frustration and demand for changes in our system of government — to conform with the requirements of the constitutional guarantees for individual and states rights — is driving force in the way voters are thinking and acting.
The first clear victory in the Republican party in its nominating process proves it. Gingrich tapped that anger and the desire for someone who is willing to fight with the establishment achieved the first resounding victory, running away with South Caroline despite a diverse field that had been pulling apart the conservative agenda.
The lesson is simple — if you are seen as establishment then you are seen and associated with the big banks, the bailouts and the disease permeating our society and economy in particular. If you are seen as fighting the control of Banks and big corporations over our freedoms and opportunity then voters are responding with favorable reviews and exercising their votes in ways that were unimaginable just a year ago. Except for Gingrich, no Republican candidate even gave lip service to those without jobs, losing homes and losing hope. They all finished very weak seconds, thirds etc. compared to the pugilistic Gingrich.
If the Obama team doesn’t get this message they simply are not listening, because the message is loud and clear, despite pundits assessments to the contrary. The country wants a fighter not a divider and not a compromiser (although compromise, in the end, lies a the heart of getting any laws passed by congress).
The full realization has already hit most of the public. The Banks stole America and the wealth and power that goes with it. The voters want the Banks shoved out of the process and brought down to size so that can be regulated in ways that worked for decades in this country. They want our country’s infrastructure revitalized, with all the jobs that go with it. And they want the tax system to be fair, with those who are well off paying their fair share and not being protected behind the false curtain of “job creators.”
I dare say that nary a politician is going to be elected or reelected even as an incumbent without paying careful attention to this message. That includes Obama who despite his formidable and well financed campaign is going to feel the pinch from voters unless his administration takes the lead and shows some willingness to duke it out with the establishment.
The people are behind those moves — no matter who makes them. And right now, the only candidate who is showing the guts to do it is Gingrich. Obama can easily regain the control of the narrative with more than words — bankers must be prosecuted if they violated the law and not protected under the false narrative that prosecution will result in the fall of the economy, the financial system and the society. It isn’t true. It was never true. And people know it.

“Occupy” targets banks, corporate campaign spending

(Reuters) – Hundreds of Occupy activists clashed with police and stormed a vacant hotel in San Francisco on Friday, capping a day of protests in the city’s financial district and separate anti-Wall Street rallies at federal courthouses across the country.

The rallies were seen as a bid by the Occupy Wall Street movement to reenergize protests against economic inequality and excesses of the U.S. financial system weeks after demonstrators were driven from tent camps in a wave of evictions nationwide.

The raucous takeover of the Cathedral Hill Hotel in San Francisco’s upscale Pacific Heights neighborhood followed a march from downtown by about 1,000 demonstrators chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” and “Cops go home!”

The protesters were met by a phalanx of police in riot gear who had set up barricades at the front entrance to the U-shaped hotel complex, which stands several stories tall and takes up an entire city block.

The crowd surged toward the barriers to try to remove them and briefly scuffled with police, who jabbed protesters with batons and doused them with pepper spray, forcing demonstrators to retreat. Police said demonstrators hurled rocks, bottles and bricks at them, with two officers suffering minor injuries.

Later, a small group of activists who had earlier gained access to the hotel complex flung open the front doors, and scores of their cheering cohorts streamed inside without resistance from police.

“Now we occupy our new home,” organizer Craig Rouskie declared, adding that demonstrators planned to spend the night but expected that police would eventually move in to oust them.

Earlier in the day, Occupy San Francisco protesters staged various acts of civil disobedience at 22 bank branches and other offices in the city’s financial district, including a group who chained themselves to entrances of the Wells Fargo headquarters.

Police said 18 protesters were arrested throughout the day.

“Many banks have taken steps to mitigate the impact,” San Francisco Police Commander Richard Corriea said. Wells Fargo told many employees to work from home, he added.

Donna Vieira, 42, a real estate appraiser, said she was protesting because the bank had “unfairly” foreclosed on her home in Reno, Nevada, last year.

“Nobody is going after the big banks. And loss and pain and suffering doesn’t matter to the regulators,” Vieira said.

OCCUPY THE COURTS

Protesters also turned out under the banner “Occupy the Courts” at some 150 courthouses nationwide to protest a Supreme Court decision in 2010 that protesters complain has led to unbridled corporate spending in political campaigns.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot restrict political speech and spending by corporations, unions and other outside groups, allowing political action committees (PACs) to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in campaigns — creating what are known as Super PACs.

The ruling in the case known as Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission has led to more than $25 million in spending so far this campaign season by outside groups seeking to influence the 2012 presidential election.

In Washington, a couple of hundred protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court, chanting “Rights are for people, not for corporations!” Police arrested 12 people.

“I don’t see how a real democracy of the people can take place when so much money is in our electoral system,” said Lucy Craig, 36, a protester from New Jersey.

About 200 protesters demonstrated peacefully in Denver outside the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, carrying signs that read “Citizens United Not Fair.”

The nonprofit organization Move to Amend organized “Occupy the Courts” to launch its campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution, seeking to abolish corporate constitutional rights and establish that money is not speech.

Move to Amend had expected up to 25,000 people to rally across the United States on Friday, spokesman David Cobb said. Occupy protest crowds tend to number in the hundreds rather than thousands of people, despite the movement’s headline-grabbing actions and social media savvy.

More than 100 protesters rallied outside the federal courthouse in Boston, while 75 people protested in front of the federal courthouse in Atlanta. In Phoenix, about 50 protesters marched outside the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Court House.

“Four hundred Americans control all the wealth,” said Mickey Mize, a spokesman for Occupy Phoenix. “They are the ones who control the job market, they are trying to control everything from education to our birthrights.”

Protests at federal courthouses in New York City and Charlottesville, Virginia, each drew about 100 people.

Protesters say they are upset that billions of dollars in bailouts given to banks during the recession allowed a return to huge profits while average Americans have had no relief from high unemployment and a struggling economy.

(Additional reporting by Lily Kuo in Washington, Lauren Keiper in Boston, David Beasley in Atlanta, Robert Boczkiewicz in Denver and Tim Gaynor in Phoenix; Writing by Michelle Nicholsand Steve Gorman; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Cynthia Johnston)

 

Banks to Pay AG Settlement with Investor Money: Deja Vu

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Adding insult to injury it appears as though the great settlement will fall far short of the tobacco settlement, at a fraction of the nominal cost and with other people’s money used to pay for what should be criminal fines. Investors are increasingly going vocal about supporting principal reduction (or correction), but this is no license to use the money in the pool to finance a $25 billion settlement for wrongdoing by the Banks, not investors.

This settlement is a farce. Securitization was a farce. The mortgages were a farce. The foreclosures were a farce. The auctions were a farce. The credit bids at auction were a farce. And the evictions were a farce. They were and are all based upon upon fraudulent conduct and representations, inducing investors to lose money the moment they bought the bogus mortgage bonds and inducing the  borrowers to lose money the moment they bought the bogus loan products.

Somehow the Banks have kept the narrative going that foreclosures are good and that they were clear out the inventory of homes that are empty and offered for sale. That is a living lie. The foreclosures are false and each additional foreclosure adds to the mounting title problems as well as being a vehicle for shifting and transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who simply want it.

Sherrod Brown: Banks Shouldn’t Be Able to Pay Foreclosure Fraud Settlement With Investor Money

By: David Dayen

I brought up one of my chief problems with the possible foreclosure fraud settlement, the fact that AGs have already tried a settlement that mandated banks to deliver loan modifications to borrowers, and they flat-out didn’t do it. But Sen. Sherrod Brown offers up another problem. It turns out that, under the settlement, the banks could be allowed to pay out penalties using mortgage capital – basically the assets of investors, not anything that would harm the banks themselves. I wrote about this a couple weeks ago:

To be clear, a substantial number of investors would support principal reductions. They’ve come out and said so. They often end up in a better place with them than with foreclosure sales. But they would not have any say in the matter, according to this proposal, and the banks would get off scot-free for their fraudulent activities. The losses in the system would incur to the homeowners and the investors [...] not only is the $19-$25 billion figure inadequate to deal with the massive foreclosure crisis or the extent of the fraud perpetrated, but banks would have a way to wriggle out of some of the charges.

It’s good to see Brown pick up on this in his letter to the lead negotiators on the settlement, which I’ve put in full below. In addition to stating that the sum total for the settlement is inadequate, Brown criticizes this creative accounting where the banks wouldn’t even pay the penalty. Here’s an excerpt:

There are reports that the settlement could permit servicers to receive credit for writing down the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) owned by investors, without requiring servicers to reduce principal on the mortgages and second liens that they own. Ohio’s public employee pension funds have significant investments in MBS, and therefore have significant interest in the terms of the settlement. The reported settlement terms would allow banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything. And, depending upon the scope, any settlement could potentially preclude these funds from pursuing actions to recoup more than $457 million in losses, allegedly due to credit ratings agencies improperly rating MBS. Such terms are unacceptable.

It’s a nice bit of framing to say that teachers and law enforcement officers and first responders would be penalized for Wall Street malfeasance. But as I’ve said, and as Brown said in this letter, investors often make out better with principal reduction than with a foreclosure sale at a massive loss. That’s not the issue. It’s that a penalty should actually hurt. And this won’t hurt a single servicer; they’ll be settling with someone else’s money. The settlement could rectify this simply by saying that the servicer must pick up the cost of the principal reduction and make the investors whole. But that probably won’t happen.

Brown also mentions that “State attorneys general tried this approach in a 2008 settlement with servicer Countrywide—it did not work.” Indeed! This is the point I’ve been trying to make. The settlement path is well-traveled and always unsatisfactory.

I would expect stakeholders to raise the volume on all of these issues in the next few days. They should stick to a few simple points. This settlement does almost nothing for most homeowners, the release of liability damages the rule of law, we tried this kind of settlement before and the banks just ignored their responsibilities, and the banks want to pay the penalty with someone else’s money.

FED is Selling Loans: Does it Own Them?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Analysis: I am watching these stories about the Federal Reserve Selling Loans — including subprime loans that they can’t get much traction on. But what troubles me is that the Federal Reserve is never mentioned as the foreclosing party.

So do they own the loans or not? Based upon published reports, the inescapable conclusion (or at least question of fact in litigation) is whether some or all of the foreclosures are being prosecuting on behalf of entities (trusts) that no longer exist and which are not owed anything because they have been bought out by the Federal Reserve, which in turns probably has no rights to pursue homeowners, and therefore should not be claiming ownership over loans that it has no authority, legal or otherwise, to enforce.

  • If the Fed is selling they must think they own them. But the Fed is never mentioned in foreclosures and nobody seems to be arguing in court that the Federal Reserve owns these loans, probably because the Federal Reserve doesn’t make it easy to find out which loans they are claiming to own, and thus which loans they could sell.
  • If what they are really selling are the complex derivatives that are often used interchangeable with owning the loans, then they are stuck with the problem of whether those loans actually made it into the REMIC pools, a fact very much in contention in litigation started by both sides of the transaction — borrowers and the original investors.
  • If the Fed is saying that they own all of the loans in the pool, that means they bought out the entire REMIC — a consequence of insurance contracts and credit default swaps bailed out by the Fed.
  • How many of those pools, bought out by the Fed still exist? Many of the REMICS have filed papers with the SEC stating that they have no further reporting requirements which would imply that they have no assets, income or liabilities. 
  • Does the Federal Reserve even know what it owns or is it just taking the word of the insurance companies, investment banks and intermediaries as to what was in those packages that were delivered to the Fed for 100 cents on the dollar?
  • And who is foreclosing in the name of those pools when the pool investors have been paid off?
  • And here is the kicker — if the pool investors were paid off (directly or indirectly) they were paid on contracts that expressly waived the right to subrogation; i.e., they waived the right to pursue homeowners on their mortgage debt.
  • If the loans were not transferred into the pools, then these transactions are a sham.
  • But they are a sham even if there was a transfer into the pools if the Fed acquired the loans via insurance and CDS contracts that waived subrogation. Remember the Fed bailed out AIG and other insurers so they could make good on insurance policies covering mortgage backed securities.
  • They bailed out the investment Banks, not the investors. So if the Federal reserve gave out 100 cents on the dollar for the actual mortgage bonds that would mean that the investment banks were still holding the mortgage bonds for sale when the market collapsed. But that isn’t what happened. The bonds were sold forward, which means that the investors bought the bonds before there were any loans to put in the pool. So if the Federal reserve gave investment banks money, what were they buying?
  • It seems more likely that the Federal Reserve was giving the investment banks money to make good on their counterparty liability in credit default swaps, which also have a provision that prevents the counterparty from exercising any right of subrogation or claims against homeowners.
  • But if the Federal Reserve was funding insurance contracts and CDS then they didn’t have any ownership interest in the loans, so what are they selling?
  • All these things and more raise the questions of fact that should allow homeowners to probe through discovery into the ornate securitization process that looks more and more like a sham itself. but the questions in foreclosure or quiet title look the same — whom did you pay, what did you pay, why did you pay, and when did you pay.
  • Follow the money and it will literally take you home. Start with the COMBO Title and Securitization, then the Loan Level Accounting Analysis and then launch into discovery. What you find in discovery may well cast doubt on the origination of the loan transaction, the viability of the note and the viability of the mortgage.

Alluring subprime debt can still poison investors

By Agnes T. Crane

See Full Story on Reuters

Subprime mortgage debt has got its mojo back. A growing number of investors reckon there’s life yet in the mortgage market’s toxic sludge from the crisis – and that now’s the time to buy. But buyers should tread carefully.

Yields are certainly enticing. Last year’s battering lopped up to a third off the value of subprime mortgage bonds, leaving some fetching 10 to 12 percent, according to Barclays estimates. U.S. junk bonds, by contrast, offer less than 8 percent. Moreover, while the U.S. housing market is hardly in a recovery, few think home prices will fall by more than a few percentage points from here.

Investment banks in particular look eager to scoop up the mortgage sludge. Credit Suisse has just bested Goldman Sachs and two other broker-dealers to a $7 billion slice of the subprime holdings the Federal Reserve took from American International Group in 2008 – though the central bank will not disclose the price until April. It’s not the first time this year the Swiss bank has been involved in the market: the bank’s senior managers are getting in on the act, too, voluntarily buying $450 million-worth of securities and putting them into a fund of mostly subprime bonds that the bank set up in 2008 to pay staff bonuses.

Less swift investors may be focusing on the chance of a good deal of supply coming onto the market. All in, some $1.2 trillion is walled up in U.S. banks, insurers, hedge funds and European firms, according to Barclays. Banks, especially, may be big sellers as Basel III capital rules are onerous for securitized debt. Europe’s lenders hold some $70 billion, with up to $20 billion potentially for sale, while U.S. banks are sitting on around $200 billion, according to Barclays’ tally.

But subprime mortgage bonds have long been an illiquid asset. The analysis required to price such complex securities makes trading them incredibly difficult. And any attempt to sell more than a small amount can quickly whack prices. That happened last year when the Fed used public auctions to get rid of some of its AIG waste and ended up offloading less than it hoped.

Buyers with a longer-term investment horizon of a couple of years or more can usually stomach some short-term volatility, especially if they don’t need to mark to market. But those who are looking for a quick fix risk getting slimed.

Reuters: Top Justice Officials Linked With Pretender Lenders and MERS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Covington Issued Legal Opinions that Started MERS

Editor’s Note: 4 years ago I interviewed lawyers that had detailed knowledge of the start of MERS and the entire mortgage mess. They told me, on promise of anonymity, and for use as background only, that some of the lawyers balked at the assignment to the tasks at Covington and other law firms that were drafting the initial documentation for what became known as “Securitization” of mortgage debt. At least two resigned, according to these sources, stating that what they were being asked to do was be complicit in criminal acts.
In a world dominated by financial services, it is hard to think of a scenario where the public officials and lawyers involved would not be associated in some way with the mega Banks, so the mere association with those firms might not indicate direct complicity on the part of Holder and Breurer — especially in large firms like Covington.
But the appearance of impropriety is present when the justice department refrains from prosecution despite wide scale published reports of forgery, fabrication and fraud reported by the officials who are charged with responsibility for maintaining an orderly system of records and a registry of title in each county.
Even if Holder and Breurer were not directly involved in the representation of MERS and the mega Banks, it certainly appears as though they are protecting their old employers from the consequences of committing the largest economic crimes in human history.
And taking President Obama at his word, he has been told that what the Banks did was legal. I have no doubt that is exactly what he has been told. The problem is that he believed what what he was told.
As far as the overall plan for securitization and even the use of MERS, there may well have been no law prohibiting the plan, although we can all agree there should have been such laws in place. The problem is that the plan was not followed — instead violations of the plan were used as a vehicle to commit theft and fraud upon investors and borrowers alike using the same tactics that departed from all legal requirements.
  • It was the departure from the plan that got the Banks into trouble and they should be in deep trouble.
  • The blue print for securitization required that the money and documents follow a certain path.
  • Instead the money followed whatever path those Banks wanted, despite clear requirements to the contrary in the securitization documents.
  • And the transfer documents for each loan, without which there would be no securitization, were not present, drafted or executed, much less delivered.
  • And this was because the Banks, even though they were merely intermediaries, asserted ownership over the loans in a grey are they created between the execution of the loan by the borrower and the supposed delivery of the loans into the pools that the investors had created with their money.
  • By asserting ownership, directly or indirectly, the banks were able to create fictitious “trades” which they used to create transaction profits, only some of which were reported, the rest being “off balance sheet” and channeled out of the country.
  • Those “profits” were merely the improper use of proceeds from borrowers’ money and property and investors’ money and that was advanced for the purchase of mortgage bonds, intended for funding mortgage loans.
There are crimes upon crimes in this story with plenty of low hanging fruit that would entice any prosecutor. That the prosecutions have not proceeded and that the investigations have been self-limiting, combined with the desire to settle with the Banks before the investigation is complete (or even started) leaves only questions of the worst kind. At this point though the administration’s press for settlement with the Banks and servicers can only be seen as disingenuous — since we know that forgery, fraud, and fabrication of documents that never existed can only be illegal.

Insight: Top Justice officials connected to mortgage banks

By Scot J. Paltrow
Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:31am EST

(Reuters) – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who’s Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows.

The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington’s biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.

Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Holder and Breuer had complied fully with conflict of interest regulations, but she declined to say if they had recused themselves from any matters related to the former clients.

Reuters reported in December that under Holder and Breuer, the Justice Department hasn’t brought any criminal cases against big banks or other companies involved in mortgage servicing, even though copious evidence has surfaced of apparent criminal violations in foreclosure cases.

The evidence, including records from federal and state courts and local clerks’ offices around the country, shows widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and illegal foreclosures on the homes of thousands of active-duty military personnel.

In recent weeks the Justice Department has come under renewed pressure from members of Congress, state and local officials and homeowners’ lawyers to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation of mortgage servicers, the biggest of which have been Covington clients. So far Justice officials haven’t responded publicly to any of the requests.

While Holder and Breuer were partners at Covington, the firm’s clients included the four largest U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co – as well as at least one other bank that is among the 10 largest mortgage servicers.

DEFENDER OF FREDDIE

Servicers perform routine mortgage maintenance tasks, including filing foreclosures, on behalf of mortgage owners, usually groups of investors who bought mortgage-backed securities.

Covington represented Freddie Mac, one of the nation’s biggest issuers of mortgage backed securities, in enforcement investigations by federal financial regulators.

A particular concern by those pressing for an investigation is Covington’s involvement with Virginia-based MERS Corp, which runs a vast computerized registry of mortgages. Little known before the mortgage crisis hit, MERS, which stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, has been at the center of complaints about false or erroneous mortgage documents.

Court records show that Covington, in the late 1990s, provided legal opinion letters needed to create MERS on behalf of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and several other large banks. It was meant to speed up registration and transfers of mortgages. By 2010, MERS claimed to own about half of all mortgages in the U.S. — roughly 60 million loans.

But evidence in numerous state and federal court cases around the country has shown that MERS authorized thousands of bank employees to sign their names as MERS officials. The banks allegedly drew up fake mortgage assignments, making it appear falsely that they had standing to file foreclosures, and then had their own employees sign the documents as MERS “vice presidents” or “assistant secretaries.”

Covington in 2004 also wrote a crucial opinion letter commissioned by MERS, providing legal justification for its electronic registry. MERS spokeswoman Karmela Lejarde declined to comment on Covington legal work done for MERS.

It isn’t known to what extent if any Covington has continued to represent the banks and other mortgage firms since Holder and Breuer left. Covington declined to respond to questions from Reuters. A Covington spokeswoman said the firm had no comment.

Several lawyers for homeowners have said that even if Holder and Breuer haven’t violated any ethics rules, their ties to Covington create an impression of bias toward the firms’ clients, especially in the absence of any prosecutions by the Justice Department.

O. Max Gardner III, a lawyer who trains other attorneys to represent homeowners in bankruptcy court foreclosure actions, said he attributes the Justice Department’s reluctance to prosecute the banks or their executives to the Obama White House’s view that it might harm the economy.

But he said that the background of Holder and Breuer at Covington — and their failure to act on foreclosure fraud or publicly recuse themselves — “doesn’t pass the smell test.”

Federal ethics regulations generally require new government officials to recuse themselves for one year from involvement in matters involving clients they personally had represented at their former law firms.

President Obama imposed additional restrictions on appointees that essentially extended the ban to two years. For Holder, that ban would have expired in February 2011, and in April for Breuer. Rules also require officials to avoid creating the appearance of a conflict.

Schmaler, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that “The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Breuer have conformed with all financial, legal and ethical obligations under law as well as additional ethical standards set by the Obama Administration.”

She said they “routinely consult” the department’s ethics officials for guidance. Without offering specifics, Schmaler said they “have recused themselves from matters as required by the law.”

Senior government officials often move to big Washington law firms, and lawyers from those firms often move into government posts. But records show that in recent years the traffic between the Justice Department and Covington & Burling has been particularly heavy. In 2010, Holder’s deputy chief of staff, John Garland, returned to Covington, as did Steven Fagell, who was Breuer’s deputy chief of staff in the criminal division.

The firm has on its web site a page listing its attorneys who are former federal government officials. Covington lists 22 from the Justice Department, and 12 from U.S. Attorneys offices, the Justice Department’s local federal prosecutors’ offices around the country.

As Reuters reported in 2011, public records show large numbers of mortgage promissory notes with apparently forged endorsements that were submitted as evidence to courts.

There also is evidence of almost routine manufacturing of false mortgage assignments, documents that transfer ownership of mortgages between banks or to groups of investors. In foreclosure actions in courts mortgage assignments are required to show that a bank has the legal right to foreclose.

In an interview in late 2011, Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School who has written about foreclosure practices said, “I think it’s difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history.”

Holder has resisted calls for a criminal investigation since October 2010, when evidence of widespread “robo-signing” first surfaced. That involved mortgage servicer employees falsely signing and swearing to massive numbers of affidavits and other foreclosure documents that they had never read or checked for accuracy.

Recent calls for a wide-ranging criminal investigation of the mortgage servicing industry have come from members of Congress, including Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., state officials, and county clerks. In recent months clerks from around the country have examined mortgage and foreclosure records filed with them and reported finding high percentages of apparently fraudulent documents.

On Wednesday, John O’Brien Jr., register of deeds in Salem, Mass., announced that he had sent 31,897 allegedly fraudulent foreclosure-related documents to Holder. O’Brien said he asked for a criminal investigation of servicers and their law firms that had filed the documents because they “show a pattern of fraud,” forgery and false notarizations.

(Reporting By Scot J. Paltrow, editing by Blake Morrison)

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,166 other followers