Deny and Discover — Where the Rubber Meets the Road

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Analysis: The banks are broke and this rule properly applied will reveal exactly how badly they fall short of capital requirements. It can be found at Volume 77, No. 169 of the Federal Register dated, Thursday, August 30, 2012 2012-16759 Capital Risk Disclosure Requirements Under Dodd Frank.

Admittedly this is not for the feint of heart or those with limited literacy in economics, accounting and finance; but if you find yourself in the position of not understanding, then go to any economist or banker or finance specialist or accountant  and they will explain it to you.

Lewtan which produces ABSnet is offering a service to banks that will give the banks and plausible deniability when the figures come up all rosy for the banks. Lewtan should be careful in view of the action being taken against the ratings companies, which is the start of an assault on the citadel of evil intent on Wall Street.

The fundamental aspect of these new rules are that the bank must report on the degree of risk it has taken on in any activity or holding. They must also  show how they arrived at that assessment and under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) you might be able to get copies of their filing whether they do it themselves (doubtful) or hire someone like Lewtan which is obviously going to do the bidding of its paying clients.

The main problem for the banks is that they are holding overvalued assets and some non-existent assets on their balance sheet. A review to assess risk if properly conducted, will definitely turn up both kinds of assets reported on the balance sheet of the banks, which in turn will reduce their reported capital reserves, which in turn will result in changing the ratio between capital and risk.

This might sound like gumbo to you. But here is the bottom line: the banks were using investor money. We all know that. In baby language, the question is if they were using someone else’s money how did the banks lose any money?

They did receive the money from investors like pension funds, and other managed funds for retirement or contingencies. But they diverted the money and the documents to make it appear that the bank owned the assets that were intended to be purchased for the REMIC trusts. The Banks then purchased and claimed to be an insured or a party who had sustained a loss when in fact the loss was incurred by the investors and the mortgage bonds and loans were owned collectively by the investors.

By doing that the insurance proceeds were paid to the banks creating an instant liability to the investors to whom they owed a common law and contractual duty to provide an accounting and distribution based upon the insurance recovery. At no time did the banks ever have a risk of loss nor an insurable interest in their own name. And at not time were they bound by the REMIC documents because they ignored the REMICs and conducted transactions through an entirely different superstructure.

As agents of the investors they should have followed the REMIC documents and purchased the insurance and CDS protection for the benefit of the investors. But they didn’t do that. They kept the money for the bank who never had any proof of loss, proof of payment and was a mere intermediary claiming the rights of the principal. The same thing happened with Credit Default Swaps and Federal bailouts.

That is why the definition of toxic assets changed over a weekend when TARP was started. It was thought that the mortgages had gone bad for the banks.

Then they realized that the mortgages weren’t going bad to the extent reported and that the bank was suffering no loss because they were using investor money to create the funding of loans and the funding of proprietary trading in which they masked the theft of trillions from investors.

So the government quietly changed the definition of toxic assets to mortgage bonds — but that ran into the same problem, to wit: the mortgage bonds were underwritten by the banks but purchased by the investors (pension funds etc.).

Now the rubber meets the road. The claim that somehow the banks got stuck with mortgage bonds is patently absurd. If they have mortgage bonds it is not because they bought them, it is because they created them but were unable to sell them because the market collapsed and the PONZI scheme fails whenever the suckers stop buying.

The actual proceeds from theft from the investors and the borrowers is parked off shore around the world. The Banks having been feeding the money back in very slowly because they want to create the appearance of an increasingly profitable bank, when in fact, their revenues sand earnings are slipping away quickly — except for the bolstering they get from repatriating stolen money from investors and borrowers and calling them “proprietary trades.”

Nobody on Wall Street is making that kind of money on trades, proprietary or otherwise, but the banks are claiming ever increasing profits, raising their stock price, defrauding their stockholders. So against each overvalued and non-existent asset claimed by the mega banks on their balance sheet is a liability of far exceeding the assets or even the combined assets of the banks. Treasury knows, this, the Fed knows this and central bankers around the world know it. But they have been drinking the Kool-Aid believing that if they call out the mega banks on this fake accounting, the entire financial system will collapse.

So yes there is a consensus between those who pull the levers of power that they will allow the banks to pretend to have assets, that their liabilities are fairly low, and that the risks associated with their business activities, assets and liabilities are minimal even while knowing the converse is true. The system’s foundation is a loose amalgamation of lies that will eventually collapse anyway but everyone likes to kick the can down the road.

You are getting in this article a sneak peek into why the banks all rushed to foreclose rather than modify or settle on better terms. What is important from the practice point of view is that (1) the “Consideration” mandated by HAMP is not happening and you can prove it with the right allegations and discovery and (2) the reports tendered to OCC and the Fed under this rule will reveal that the issue of proof of loss, risk of loss, proof of payment and ownership is completely muddled — unless you follow the money trail (see yesterday’s article). You can subpoena the reports given by the banks from both the bank itself or the agency. My opinion is that you fill find a treasure trove of information very damaging to the banks and the Treasury Department.

There will be caveats in the notes that express the risk of inaccuracy and which reveal the possibility that the banks neither own nor control the mortgages except as agents for the investors, that the liability to the investors is equal to the money received from insurance, CDS, and bailouts, and that the borrower’s loan payable balance was corresponding reduced as to the investor and increased to entities that are not or cannot press any claims against the borrowers. Educate yourself and persist — the tide is turning.

Excerpt from attached section of Federal Register:

The bank’s primary federal supervisor may rescind its approval, in whole or in part, of the use of any internal model and determine an appropriate regulatory capital requirement for the covered positions to which the model would apply, if it determines that the model no longer

complies with the market risk capital rule or fails to reflect accurately the risks of the bank’s covered positions. For example, if adverse market events or other developments reveal that a material assumption in an approved model is flawed, the bank’s primary federal supervisor may require the bank to revise its model assumptions and resubmit the model specifications for review. In the final rule, the agencies made minor modifications to this provision in section 3(c)(3) to improve clarity and correct a cross-reference.

Financial markets evolve rapidly, and internal models that were state-of-the- art at the time they were approved for use in risk-based capital calculations can become less effective as the risks of covered positions evolve and as the industry develops more sophisticated modeling techniques that better capture material risks. Therefore, under the final rule, as under the January 2011 proposal, a bank must review its internal models periodically, but no less frequently than annually, in light of developments in financial markets and modeling technologies, and to enhance those models as appropriate to ensure that they continue to meet the agencies’ standards for model approval and employ risk measurement methodologies that are, in the bank’s judgment, most appropriate for the bank’s covered positions. It is essential that a bank continually review, and as appropriate, make adjustments to its models to help ensure that its market risk capital requirement reflects the risk of the bank’s covered positions. A bank’s primary federal supervisor will closely review the bank’s model review practices as a matter of safety and soundness. The agencies are adopting these requirements in the final rule.

Risks Reflected in Models. The final rule requires a bank to incorporate its internal models into its risk management process and integrate the internal models used for calculating its VaR-based measure into its daily risk management process. The level of sophistication of a bank’s models must be commensurate with the complexity and amount of its covered positions.

About these ads

21 Responses

  1. The money is coming from the U.S. TAXPAYER’S POCKETS….WHERE THESE CROOKS ALWAYS STEAL IT FROM.

  2. “When the rubber hits the road” Hmmm
    Is that like when there is an ‘agen’ to disperse the OCC funds and you may not even have to file the app for a foreclosure investigation ? What about those of us who filed a YEAR ago ?
    Where’s this money coming from- someone on this site must have some info ???? Which fund under what category ?
    People who bought property with a hard-earned down payment never could foresee having to be in Court to save it.
    How many people are homeless because they tried being lawyers ?
    .

  3. This was a very deceptive Bankster/Wall Street ponzi scheme with credit & investing under the guise that something of value was lent. Nothing of value is ever lent in a ponzi scheme. It is just robbery from the bottom to the crooks at the top and it can never be sustained because it never had any real value. It is just robbery.

  4. Husband keeps the house and Wife buys up debt at vulture price. They file QT action and live Happily Ever After. I Like my Ending Better!

  5. People give up mainly because of poor education…fear and brainwashing. They really believe they are slaves to that criminal piece of shit contract that in reality….they never signed. These people are still not paying attention and realizing fraudclosure is a scam, another big swindle of their remaining wealth & freedom. That is the result of a mass brainwashing campaign by these crooks and you just can’t believe the level of brainwashing, even by the seemingly well educated. THEY DEFEND THEIR ABUSERS….IT IS TRULY MIND BOGGLING THE SCOPE OF THIS CONSPIRACY……PEOPLE MINDS ARE ENSLAVED TO THE BELIEF THAT BANKS CAN’T BE PREDATORS AND CROOKS…THAT THEY WOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW..AND THEY SIGNED A CONTRACT…THAT DEADBEAT MORAL HAZARD THEORY THAT IS SOMEHOW SEARED IN THEIR BRAINS….EVEN WHILE THEY HEAR THE BANKS ARE OPENLY LAUNDERING DRUG MONEY FOR DRUG CARTELS …….THEIR ENGAGEMENT IN THE LIBOR INTEREST RATE RIGGING SCANDAL…..THE LONDON WHALE…ETC…EXCEPT FOR THE THREAT TO STEAL THEIR GUNS THEY REMAIN BLISSFULLY IGNORANT OF THESE CROOKS…..THEY CONTINUE TO PAY CROOKS FOR PROPERTY THAT THE BANKS DESROYED THE VALUE OF….AND HYPERINFLATED PROPERTY TAXES THAT DON’T PAN OUT TO THE TRUE VALUES….THE PROPERTIES ARE WORTH ZERO…ONLY WHAT THE VULTURES WILL PAY IS NOT VALUE….TOO MANY AMERICANS ARE NOT USING THERE COMMON SENSE…AT ALL. THEY DON’T EVEN REALIZE THEY WERE INDUCED TO SIGN A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT ….. THAT WAS IMMORAL, CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL…

  6. Again the issue of if and when to QT. It doesn’t matter what you do. What matters is that you DO something. Too many homeowners walked away out of shame, despair, fear or ignorance. There no longer is any reason to walk away without fighting.

    More on Schwartzwald: Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Another Foreclosure
    by Robert Franco | 2013/01/21 |

    The Schwartzwald case held that a Plaintiff in a foreclosure case that does not hold the note or mortgage at the time it files the complaint lacks standing, and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction. The big question that this left open was: what effect does that have on all of the faulty foreclosures that have already been completed? We may now have some insight into this thanks to a case that was reversed and remanded just last month, Washington Mutual Bank v. Wallace.

    Source of Title Blog ::

    In 1999 Wallace purchased her home with financing from Norwest Mortgage. The note attached to the complaint had not been endorsed by Norwest and the mortgage was in favor of Norwest. In July 2008, Washington Mutual filed a complaint for foreclosure, alleging that it was the holder of Wallace’s note and mortgage. The following month, on August 14, 2008, Wells Fargo Bank, successor to Norwest, executed an Assignment of Mortgage to Washington Mutual, “together with the Promissory Note secured thereby and referenced therein.” The Assignment was recorded on August 21, 2008.

    Wallace never filed an answer and the Court granted default judgment against her on August 20, 2008. Wallace did not appeal. But, about nine months later, on May 11, 2009, Wallace filed a Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment. Wallace claimed that because Washington Mutual failed to establish that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the court lacked standing and its default judgment was void.

    On May 14, 2009, Wallace filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment, arguing that it should be granted because Washington Mutual falsely represented that it held the note and mortgage when it filed its complaint, and that she had a meritorious defense to the action – that Washington Mutual lacked standing to bring the foreclosure.

    The trial court overruled both motions and Wallace appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s default judgment, relying in part on one of its earlier cases in which it held that “when the appellants failed to raise their real-party-in-interest objection or defense in the trial court at a time when the issue could have been effectively dealt with, the objection or defense was deemed waived.” The Court then concluded that “the fact that WaMu did not become the real party in interest in the 2008 foreclosure until 34 days after WaMu commenced the action but before final judgment was entered in that action did not deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction to enter default judgment against Wallace and in favor of WaMu.”

    Wallace then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal with a stay on briefing until the Court decided Schwartzwald. Schwartzwald, of course, held that “a party commencing litigation must have standing to sue in order to present a justiciable controversy and invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court,” and “a lack of standing at the outset of litigation cannot be cured by receipt of an assignment of the claim or by substitution of the real party in interest.”

    Washington Mutual urged the Court to reactivate the Wallace appeal for briefing and oral argument, arguing that the issue raised was not addressed by Schwartzwald. The difference, according to Washington Mutual, was that in Schwartzwald the defendants actively defended the action, raising the issue of standing in their answer — and in Wallace the defendant did not defend, default judgment was rendered against her, and she did not appeal.

    In essence, Washington Mutual presented the problem now created by Schwartzwald: what is the retro-active effect of the case on past foreclosures where the Schwartzwald problem was never raised? According to Washington Mutual:

    This case affords the Court to opportunity to address how the rule in Schwartzwald applies to motion to vacate judgments, whether a lack of standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, and whether a lack of standing can be waived. If– as contended here– a plaintiff’s failure to prove standing at the time of the complaint deprives a common pleas court of subject matter jurisdiction– then every judgment rendered in Ohio could be attacked. Because void judgments are not subject to time limits of Civil Rule 60(B), those attacks would throw into question literally hundred of thousands of cases that have long been over.

    Wallace argued that the propositions of law in both were identical and the Schwartzwald Court ruled on each of those points:

    The Court ruled that standing is a necessary component of a common pleas court’s jurisdiction. And it held that standing must be established as of the filing of the complaint. It clearly stated that Civ. R. 17(A) cannot be used to cure a lack of standing. And the Court made clear that its decision is premised on the fact that Freddie Mac was not entitled to enforce the note, and therefore had suffered no injury, at the time it filed suit.

    The Ohio Supreme Court denied Washington Mutual’s motion and reversed the court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Schwartzwald.

    The sale of the Wallace property was confirmed on January 24, 2011, though it appears that Washington Mutual assigned its bid to its successor-in-interest and receiver, JP Morgan Chase Bank, which still holds title today.

    Though the Supreme Court did not provide any written opinion to provide guidance on the issue, it appears that it may never be too late to challenge a judgment in a foreclosure case that is void for lack of standing under Schwartzwald. How then will the title industry deal with many properties plagued by old Schwartzwald problems?

    Underwriters have begun to require exceptions on policies to make it clear that they will not cover claims related to attempts to set aside foreclosure judgments or subsequent sales based on lack of standing arguments. But, many policies have already been issued without such exceptions. Is there any way to cure this type of defect?

    One possibility may be quiet title actions brought by the “new owners,” but this was unsuccessfully tried in Massachusetts. Following the Massachusetts Supreme Court case, U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, which was similar to Schwartzwald, a homeowner plagued by defective title filed a “try title” action and the Court dismissed it for lack of standing.

    Francis Bevilacqua had purchased the property from U.S. Bank after it foreclosed on Pablo Rodriguez. U.S. Bank, unfortunately, did not hold the mortgage at the time it purported to foreclose. Thus, U.S. Bank never acquired title to the property – the sale was “wholly void.” Because U.S. Bank did not hold title to the property, it could not convey tile to Bevilacqua which was fatal to Bevilacqua’s claim to “own” the property for purposes of his try title action.

    Interestingly, Rodriquez did not even attempt to defend his title. Nevertheless, the trial court explained that the mere fact that Bevilacqua had a deed recorded in his name was irrelevant. The court wrote that “in the classic example, a litigant could go to the registry, record a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, commence suit, hope that the true owners ignored the suit or… could not be readily located and [would thus] be defaulted, and secure a judgment.”

    [For more on Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, see Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez– Mass. Buyers out of Foreclosure Get the [Mostly] Bad News.]

    Though I think the court got the Bevilacqua case wrong, it does have some merit and if followed in Ohio it would make it very difficult to cure Schwartzwald defects. In at least some of these types of cases, the foreclosures are long over and the party who would have standing to institute a new foreclosure would have little incentive to do so. Those people who have been wrongly foreclosed on, who may have standing to file a quiet title action, have likely moved on and probably have little interest in getting involved. Yet, those who have purchased foreclosed properties with defective title may have trouble obtaining title insurance or selling their homes.

    We may have to wait for the next big Ohio Supreme Court case to provide us with the answer.

    Though it has created a lot of uncertainty, the Schwartzwald case is certainly a landmark case in Ohio. Attorney Andrew M. Engel, who represented Schwartzwald and Wallace, deserves kudos. 2012 was a great year for him and he has provided homeowners with a great, and much needed, defense in foreclosure actions.

  7. The General Rule is that where authority is given to one to fill in blanks of an instrument other than as authorized constitutes “forgery” where there are other elements of forgery present. (People v Kubanek, 1939).

  8. This is what I submitted a whistle-blower complaint about in concerns to Ginnie Mae who has the blank endorse Notes relinquish to them as underlying collateral whoever Ginnie Mae cannot and does not purchase the blank Notes they have in their physical possession via the fake custodian of records.

    The lenders who are transformed into “issuers” are the fact of the homeowners closing the loan without a provision of pooling the loans, and becoming a part of a securities. The lenders/issuers once the loan are pooled they take money advances and they have no financial interest in the Notes once they have signed endorsing the Notes and relinquish the document under UCC 3, he who is in possession is the owner of.

    However when challenged the holder of the blank Notes has the burden of proof that they have purchase the debt under UCC 9. Houston we got a problem because we know by law Ginnie Mae cannot and does not purchase home mortgage loans.

    So Ginnie Mae is not even sign up for the HAMP and the payments have not been going to the lender because there is no actual lender after the transfer. Ginnie Mae must have the properties foreclosed as they are not even signed up for the HAMP, but also cannot change a interest rate or term anyway.

    What you have as I had told the Federal Whistle Blower folk over a year ago and the Fed over a year ago this was the case as I had all the documents proving the fact plus telling the OCC over 2 years ago this was the case.

    Ginnie Mae knows it not on title and the Washington Mutual Bank government insured loans that are currently being serviced by Wells Fargo best show the Ponzi for what it is. However Wells Fargo Bank is stupid as they could handle a problem years ago before allowing this to drag on and the wrong person understanding the scheme, because you had to fight a situation that made on sence!

  9. What was I saying a few days ago, about the right time to quiet title and someone jumped all over me? In a case like the one below, I would be filing faster than you can say “bank fraud”!!!

    Anyone in that position must take action. Otherwise, there is absolutely no excuse.

    I predict that, all of a sudden, everything will come to a standstill, especially in states such as CA, AZ and FL, where halfassed foreclosures will be allowed to linger and empty houses will left vacant. When you start spotting that, run to your court house and file for quiet title. if the bank already let go, it won’t fight the quiet title action.

    Understand that banks are broke, they are losing their grip and we are at the end of the insanity. I give banks another few weeks. A couple of months, maybe.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNFMH_EQRFI

    Zombie foreclosure could mean free house for some

    Posted: 01/22/2013
    Last Updated: 19 hours and 14 minutes ago

    By: Matthew Harris

    BOYNTON BEACH, Fla. – At the end of a cul-de-sac in Boynton Beach’s Dos Lagos neighborhood sits one of two empty foreclosures on the street.

    “It’s just in limbo. Waiting for the bank to come and take it,” neighbor Don Ledsworth showed NewsChannel 5.

    Ledsworth says no one has lived there in years.

    “We cut the grass and make sure it’s kind of presentable,” Ledsworth said.

    The foreclosure process started in April 2010, and for whatever reason, the bank hasn’t finished.

    It’s one of possibly two million so-called zombie foreclosures in the U.S.

    “So the homeowner, unbeknownst to them, actually remains on the title to the property. Meaning they’re still responsible for the real estate taxes, for maintaining the property, for anything that happens on the property, god forbid someone gets hurt,” real estate attorney Shari Olefson said.

    Olefson told NewsChannel 5 in some cases it doesn’t make sense for the bank to foreclose.

    “The property value has gone down. By the time they get the home it needs a lot of repairs, and there’s back taxes, and they’re just not going to get enough money to pay off the loan anyway,” Olefson said.

    So how do you know you’re not the owner of a zombie foreclosure? Check public records. And if you’re still on the title of your foreclosure, ask your bank its intentions.

    Olefson says under some foreclosure settlement deals banks are required to forgive the mortgage.

    “Theoretically there may be people who moved out of their home 2 or 3 years ago don’t realize they still own it and now are in a situation where the bank is willing to forgive their mortgage,” Olefson said.

    To check property records in your county click below:

  10. Guest says the banksters can commit EXTORTION and pocket (STEAL OUR MONEY) AND she calls it…..collecting usury 40% of their fraudulently induced “loan” amount and she calls OVER issuing Investments in that fraudulently induced loan amount SECURITIZATION …..I CALL THAT INTENT TO DECEIVE ….SECURITIES FRAUD….BANK FRAUD…WIRE FRAUD….TAX FRAUD….COUNTERFEITING …..FORGERY…RACKETEERING…..CONCEALMENT…..FOR THE BANKSTERS TO GAIN UNJUST ENRICHMENT….AKA THEFT…

  11. What is you State SOL for Failure to Make a Claim? Anyone?

  12. Poppy they are moving faster than we can keep up our courts can stop this atrocity

    MA Sen Moore plans to re-introduce Senate Bill 830 in 2013 An Act clearing titles to foreclosed properties
    ( sorry couldnt get link yo work see foreclosurefraud )

  13. Sheesh…! Tried to post this 3 times but too many links on it. Here it is again, with no link. I’d use that kind of info during deposition. Can’t hurt to show the bank that you know what’s going on and that you are on top of their game and that you know they won’t get away with anything (and they won’t…) Document, document, document. And be specific. Broad, vague and sweeping declarations of conspiracies will kill anyone’s case. Specific info makes banks lawyers twitch a bit…

    One of my players is on it. 4 times, two of which just where i live. I really, really like that.

    NR 2013-12
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    January 18, 2013
    Contact: (202) 649-6870
    OCC Enforcement Actions

    WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released new enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with national banks and federal savings associations.

    All Cease and Desist Orders, Civil Money Penalty Orders, and Removal/Prohibition Orders are issued with the consent of the parties, unless otherwise indicated as a Decision and Order issued by the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Copies of the final actions are available for download by viewing the searchable database of all public enforcement actions taken since August 1989.

    You may also submit a request electronically to obtain copies through the OCC’s online FOIA site. Fax requests should be sent to (202)-649-6160. You can also obtain copies by writing to the Comptroller of the Currency, Communications Division, Mail Stop 6W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    When ordering, specify the appropriate enforcement action number.

    Cease and Desist Orders
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    Alabama
    2012-264 Worthington Federal Bank, Huntsville 12/05/2012
    California
    2013-002 JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, National Association, San Francisco 01/14/2013
    Delaware
    2013-002 Chase Bank USA, National Association, Newark 01/14/2013
    Georgia
    2012-265 Cornerstone Bank, Atlanta 12/11/2012
    Illinois
    2012-266 Ben Franklin Bank of Illinois, Arlington Heights 12/19/2012
    Ohio
    2013-001 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 01/14/2013
    2013-002 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 01/14/2013

    Formal Agreements
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    Connecticut
    2012-267 Fieldpoint Private Bank & Trust, Greenwich 11/29/2012
    Indiana
    2012-268 Citizens Financial Bank, Munster 12/18/2012
    New Jersey
    2012-269 Delanco Federal Savings Bank, Delanco 11/21/2012

    Terminations of Existing Enforcement Actions
    No. Type/Bank/City/Old EA# Date
    Georgia
    2012-265 C&D, Cornerstonebank, Atlanta (EA# SE 10-028) 12/11/2012
    Iowa
    2012-270 C&D, Frontier Bank, Rock Rapids (EA# CN 10-11) 12/7/2012
    2012-270 C&D, Frontier Bank, Rock Rapids (EA# CN 11-29) 12/7/2012
    Montana
    2012-271 C&D, Mountain West Bank, National Association, Helena (EA# 2010-073) 12/18/2012
    Oklahoma
    2012-272 FA, Tulsa National Bank, Tulsa (EA# 2012-075) 12/17/2012

  14. One of my players is on it. 4 times. I like that. A lot.

    http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-occ-2013-12.html

    NR 2013-12
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    January 18, 2013
    Contact: (202) 649-6870
    OCC Enforcement Actions

    WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released new enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with national banks and federal savings associations.

    All Cease and Desist Orders, Civil Money Penalty Orders, and Removal/Prohibition Orders are issued with the consent of the parties, unless otherwise indicated as a Decision and Order issued by the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Copies of the final actions are available for download by viewing the searchable database of all public enforcement actions taken since August 1989 at http://apps.occ.gov/EnforcementActions/.

    You may also submit a request electronically to obtain copies through the OCC’s online FOIA site. Fax requests should be sent to (202)-649-6160. You can also obtain copies by writing to the Comptroller of the Currency, Communications Division, Mail Stop 6W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    When ordering, specify the appropriate enforcement action number.

    Cease and Desist Orders
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    Alabama
    2012-264 Worthington Federal Bank, Huntsville 12/05/2012
    California
    2013-002 JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, National Association, San Francisco 01/14/2013
    Delaware
    2013-002 Chase Bank USA, National Association, Newark 01/14/2013
    Georgia
    2012-265 Cornerstone Bank, Atlanta 12/11/2012
    Illinois
    2012-266 Ben Franklin Bank of Illinois, Arlington Heights 12/19/2012
    Ohio
    2013-001 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 01/14/2013
    2013-002 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 01/14/2013

    Formal Agreements
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    Connecticut
    2012-267 Fieldpoint Private Bank & Trust, Greenwich 11/29/2012
    Indiana
    2012-268 Citizens Financial Bank, Munster 12/18/2012
    New Jersey
    2012-269 Delanco Federal Savings Bank, Delanco 11/21/2012

    Terminations of Existing Enforcement Actions
    No. Type/Bank/City/Old EA# Date
    Georgia
    2012-265 C&D, Cornerstonebank, Atlanta (EA# SE 10-028) 12/11/2012
    Iowa
    2012-270 C&D, Frontier Bank, Rock Rapids (EA# CN 10-11) 12/7/2012
    2012-270 C&D, Frontier Bank, Rock Rapids (EA# CN 11-29) 12/7/2012
    Montana
    2012-271 C&D, Mountain West Bank, National Association, Helena (EA# 2010-073) 12/18/2012
    Oklahoma
    2012-272 FA, Tulsa National Bank, Tulsa (EA# 2012-075) 12/17/2012

  15. One of my players is in it. 4 times. I like that!

    http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-occ-2013-12.html

    NR 2013-12
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    January 18, 2013
    Contact: (202) 649-6870
    OCC Enforcement Actions

    WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released new enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with national banks and federal savings associations.

    All Cease and Desist Orders, Civil Money Penalty Orders, and Removal/Prohibition Orders are issued with the consent of the parties, unless otherwise indicated as a Decision and Order issued by the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Copies of the final actions are available for download by viewing the searchable database of all public enforcement actions taken since August 1989 at http://apps.occ.gov/EnforcementActions/.

    You may also submit a request electronically to obtain copies through the OCC’s online FOIA site, http://foia-pal.occ.gov/palMain.aspx. Fax requests should be sent to (202)-649-6160. You can also obtain copies by writing to the Comptroller of the Currency, Communications Division, Mail Stop 6W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    When ordering, specify the appropriate enforcement action number.

    Cease and Desist Orders
    No. Name/Bank/City Date

    Alabama
    2012-264 Worthington Federal Bank, Huntsville 12/05/2012

    California
    2013-002 JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, National Association, San Francisco 01/14/2013

    Delaware
    2013-002 Chase Bank USA, National Association, Newark 01/14/2013

    Georgia
    2012-265 Cornerstone Bank, Atlanta 12/11/2012

    Illinois
    2012-266 Ben Franklin Bank of Illinois, Arlington Heights 12/19/2012

    Ohio
    2013-001 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 01/14/2013
    2013-002 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus 01/14/2013

    Formal Agreements
    No. Name/Bank/City Date
    Connecticut
    2012-267 Fieldpoint Private Bank & Trust, Greenwich 11/29/2012
    Indiana
    2012-268 Citizens Financial Bank, Munster 12/18/2012
    New Jersey
    2012-269 Delanco Federal Savings Bank, Delanco 11/21/2012

  16. The rubber has met the road..IMHO, notes and DOT are in possession of Fannie and Freddie. No disclosures, indemnity required and many are deeply reduced with no contract out. Buy or lose the deposits…government has them and given “immunity” to the thieves for the rights to foreclose and recoup whatever they can…game over! The courts, OMG are our only recourse…again IMHO…suit against the government, without risking your life…must be everyone, safety in numbers. Agents are saying lots of these properties are in the pipeline too. Just my $.02 worth.

  17. “Lewtan which produces ABSnet is offering a service to banks that will give the banks and plausible deniability when the figures come up all rosy for the banks.”

    Neil, can you review your prose before posting it? I have no idea what that sentence means… I’m missing a verb or sum’tin’.

    In any event, this explains why, after 6 years, not one country, save a very small and fairly isolated one such as Iceland, seems able to get itself out of its economic imbroglio and why it cannot and will not be resolved in any court of law. There is a push for a complete reset of the global economy and with reasons: where does one start when we have all become so interdependent that the crumbling of one economy can only result in the crumbling of the entire world at large? Remember the tower of Babel? Well, we reached the top a while back and we’ve been cruising and stagnating there, some of us white-knuckling on for dear life, knowing full well that it can only collapse but too afraid (unconscious, greedy, selfish, you name it) to get down the ladder. The time is up. And not one minute too early either! Funny to watch high rises go up with cranes on top of the last floor under construction but the way those cranes go up and up and up is never, ever the way they come down. Come to think of it, they have to be airlifted down, piece by piece. And so will the world.

    I don’t particularly care to mess around with rubber bands: when you pull and pull, you know that eventually, it will snap! Not into physical pain… Well, our world economic rubber band has been stretched to the limit. Snapping time is upon us and throwing bankers in jail ain’t gona prevent it or fix it. Get your fingers out of the way, stay at a safe distance, watch and enjoy. It’s going to be a bumping but exhilarating ride! And it’s like taking off shoes that are too small: it feels so good when it’s over!

  18. The failure to disclose liability to shareholders and stakeholders ia what it has been about from day one.

  19. Example of a $100,000 mortgage. If the bank had to keep 40% intrest in the loan to maintain ownership and sold/securitized the other 60% (and that 60% was paid off by ins upon default), wouldnt that mean the only debt remaining is the 40% or $40,000?

  20. “The Rubber Meets the Road” …. but nobody has any traction. Just stuck … then SOL, FTMC, & Escheat kicks in. Did you keep possesion? Did you keep up maintaince, taxes and ins?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: