Identity Theft: The Nuclear Option

The purpose of this article is to support the prior conclusions expressed in my articles and appearances that in addition to being a Ponzi scheme, a necessary component of the illusion of a securitization plan was identity theft in which the identity of a person or entity is used for fraudulent purposes. The latest round of lawsuits and investigations center in on allegations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission that the sale of mortgage bonds was fraudulent. We agree, and for more reasons than those reported to be in those lawsuits. Under Federal and State law identity theft occurs when the information is obtained for use in a fraudulent scheme, just as alleged by the department of justice.

I remind the reader that I have repeatedly made the statement that the money from the investor was diverted and misapplied just as the money from the insurance, credit default swaps, taxpayer and federal reserve was misapplied. Research below indicates that such behavior can be and in this case I would argue is criminal conduct with a right of private action for damages.  Thus I would argue that embezzlement and related crimes apply to the securitization scam.

There are many ways in which the damages to the homeowner can be recouped. this article suggests that one of them is through allegations of identity theft. The thief is the bank that set up the false securitization scheme. The victim is the homeowner who gave their name, SSN and other identifying characteristics so that the thief could use it in a variety of ways for trading and profit without the knowledge or consent of the victim. The information was obtained by falsely representing the nature of the transaction in which the alleged loan was closed. The damages are the value of the home, and any other out of pocket expenses or consequential damages to credit reputation etc. plus punitive, treble or exemplary damages.  The defendants are all of the people who knew or should have known or must known the details of the fraudulent scheme.

The interesting legal question that is not answered in the research document below is whether identity theft can be used defensively as part of affirmative defenses or whether it must be used offensively in a counterclaim or separate lawsuit. I would argue that it can be used defensively and that as such the statute of limitations would never apply. The purpose of the transaction was to obtain the homeowners personal financial information in a manner that was not disclosed to the homeowner at the time the information was obtained nor was it disclosed at the time of the alleged loan “closing”, and then the financial information was used for the purpose of selling fraudulent mortgage bonds to investors who now concede that they have no right of action against the homeowner.

The banks will  attack this defense on the same basis as the head of any other organized crime syndicate, to wit: that they had no idea that crimes were being committed in the securitization chain. This claim will not hold much water when it is disclosed that securitization chain is described in documents but was never used and that the banks directly control the movement of money and the fabrication of documents to give a false impression of the movement of money and transacting business.

If the United States Department of Justice wishes to press criminal charges it might find an easy path in identity theft.

I wish to acknowledge that the research presented below was done entirely by a legal intern from the law school at Florida State University. While the initial instructions came from me she performed the research without direct guidance required from me. While I don’t think I am permitted to use her name I would like to say for purposes of disclosure, I am thankful for the work that she performed in producing the information and commentary contained below.

Table of Contents

 

QUESTION 1: What is the definition of ID theft?2

 

a. ON THE STATE LEVEL2

 

b. ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL4

 

§ 1028A. Aggravated identity theft4

 

§ 656. Theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee4

 

18 U.S.C.A. § 1028(a)(7)5

 

§ 6823. Criminal penalty5

 

§ 6821. Privacy protection for customer information of financial institutions5

 

QUESTION 2:  What can you sue for and/or what damages are you entitled to?7

 

DOCUMENT A8

 

DOCUMENT B13

 

772.11. Civil remedy for theft or exploitation13

 

DOCUMENT C14

 

812.012. Definitions14

 

812.014. Theft15

 

812.019. Dealing in stolen property15

 

 =====================================

QUESTION 1: What is the definition of ID theft?

 

 

 

a. ON THE STATE LEVEL

 

 

Identity theft is covered by FL Stat. §817.02 and §817.568.  §817.02 states that “Whoever falsely personates or represents another, and in such assumed character receives any property intended to be delivered to the party so personated, with intent to convert the same to his or her own use, shall be punished as if he or she had been convicted of larceny.”

 

 

 

§817.568 defines the “Criminal Use of Personal Identification Information.”  I will summarize, but at the end I will include the full text of the statute (see “Document A”).  In the summary below, any irrelevant sections have been omitted, and the particularly important paragraphs have been put in bold font. §817.568 does also specify that the definition of “person” can be found in FL Stat. §1.01(3), which says that, “The word ‘person’ includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.”  Which would reasonably include a bank.  With that in mind, here is the summary:

 

 

 

Subsection (1)(f) says that “personal identification information” is any name or number used to identify a specific individual.  This includes names, postal/email addresses, phone number, SS number, bank account number, credit/debit card number, unique electronic ID number, and “other number or information that can be used to access a person’s financial resources”, among other things.

 

 

 

 Subsection (2)(a-c) specifies the felonies that a person can be charged with if they commit “fraudulent use of personal identification information” by “willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual’s consent”.  Depending on the amount of the injury/fraud, and the number of individuals’ personal ID info that is fraudulently used, a person can be charged with first, second, or third degree felony. 

 

 

 

Subsection (4) says that if you use personal ID info without consent for the purposes of harassing that individual, then they’ve committed the offense of “harassment by use of personal identification information.”

 

 

Subsection (5) says that if the offense was “facilitated or furthered by the use of a public record…the offense is reclassified to the next higher degree.”

 

 

Subsection (9) describes the penalties and definitions for creating, using, or possessing with intent to fraudulently use, counterfeit or fictitious personal identification information.

 

 

Subsection (10) says that “Any person who commits an offense described in this section and for the purpose of obtaining or using personal identification information misrepresents himself or herself to be…an employee or representative of a bank, credit card company, credit counseling company, or credit reporting agency; or any person who wrongfully represents that he or she is seeking to assist the victim with a problem with the victim’s credit history shall have the offense reclassified.”  It then goes on to reclassify the offenses in subsections (a) through (d).

 

 

Subsection (13) describes the restitution the court may order.  It specifies that, “In addition to the victim’s out-of-pocket costs, restitution may include payment of any other costs, including attorney’s fees incurred by the victim in clearing the victim’s credit history or credit rating, or any costs incurred in connection with any civil or administrative proceeding to satisfy any debt, lien, or other obligation of the victim arising as the result of the actions of the defendant.”  The court may also issue orders necessary to correct the public record if need be.

 

 

 

Subsection (14) specifies who may bring the action to the court (any state attorney or the statewide prosecutor).

 

 

Subsections (15) and (16) describe the requirements for jurisdiction and venue.

 

 

 

Subsection (17) describes the statute of limitations. (3 years after offense occurred for subsections (2), (6), & (7).  1 year after discovery of offense by aggrieved party/person who has a legal duty to represent the aggrieved party IF the prosecution is commenced within 5 years after the violation occurred)

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

b. ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL

 

 

18 U.S.C.A. §1028A would probably be the most applicable.  The section on aggravated identity theft is in normal font, and the sections it references are indented and italicized. Andininand willweight of the dealgot a goalshouldI know I just can’t get a matter the house I think he’s out and mixing I know is onin better

 

§ 1028A. Aggravated identity theft

 

 

 

(a) Offenses.

 

(1) In general.–Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.

 

 

(c) Definition.–For purposes of this section, the term “felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)” means any offense that is a felony violation of–

 

(1) …section 656 (relating to theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee)…;

 

§ 656. Theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee

 

Whoever, being an officer, director, agent or employee of, or connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank, member bank, depository institution holding company, national bank, insured bank, branch or agency of a foreign bank, or organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act, or a receiver of a national bank, insured bank, branch, agency, or organization or any agent or employee of the receiver, or a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of a Federal Reserve Agent or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits of such bank, branch, agency, or organization or holding company or any moneys, funds, assets or securities intrusted to the custody or care of such bank, branch, agency, or organization, or holding company or to the custody or care of any such agent, officer, director, employee or receiver, shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both; but if the amount embezzled, abstracted, purloined or misapplied does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

 

 

As used in this section, the term “national bank” is synonymous with “national banking association”; “member bank” means and includes any national bank, state bank, or bank and trust company which has become a member of one of the Federal Reserve banks; “insured bank” includes any bank, banking association, trust company, savings bank, or other banking institution, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and the term “branch or agency of a foreign bank” means a branch or agency described in section 20(9) of this title. For purposes of this section, the term “depository institution holding company” has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

 

18 U.S.C.A. § 656 (West)

 

 

 

(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to fraud and false statements), other than this section or section 1028(a)(7);

 

18 U.S.C.A. § 1028(a)(7)

 

“…knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law…”

 

18 U.S.C.A. § 1028 (West)

 

 

 

(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false pretenses);

 

§ 6823. Criminal penalty

 

(a) In general

 

Whoever knowingly and intentionally violates, or knowingly and intentionally attempts to violate, section 6821 of this title shall be fined in accordance with Title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

 

15 U.S.C.A. § 6823 (West)

 

 

 

§ 6821. Privacy protection for customer information of financial institutions

 

 (a) Prohibition on obtaining customer information by false pretenses

 

It shall be a violation of this subchapter for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person–

 

(1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;

 

(2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution; or

 

(3) by providing any document to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, knowing that the document is forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen, was fraudulently obtained, or contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.

 

(b) Prohibition on solicitation of a person to obtain customer information from financial institution under false pretenses

 

It shall be a violation of this subchapter to request a person to obtain customer information of a financial institution, knowing that the person will obtain, or attempt to obtain, the information from the institution in any manner described in subsection (a) of this section.

 

15 U.S.C.A. § 6821 (West)

 

 

 

18 U.S.C.A. § 1028A (West)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

QUESTION 2:  What can you sue for and/or what damages are you entitled to?

 

 

Under Florida law, §817.568(13)(a-b) specifies the restitution an aggrieved party is allowed to recover.  It states,

 

(a) In sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense under this section, the court may order that the defendant make restitution under s. 775.089 to any victim of the offense. In addition to the victim’s out-of-pocket costs, restitution may include payment of any other costs, including attorney’s fees incurred by the victim in clearing the victim’s credit history or credit rating, or any costs incurred in connection with any civil or administrative proceeding to satisfy any debt, lien, or other obligation of the victim arising as the result of the actions of the defendant.

 

(b) The sentencing court may issue such orders as are necessary to correct any public record that contains false information given in violation of this section.

 

 

The statute does not specify that you can sue the convicted defendant and recover the benefits they received from stealing your identity. 

 

 

Most the cases I am finding about recovering damages from a bank because of identity theft result from the bank losing the personal information or somehow making it accessible (often through a bank employee), and then the bank being sued under the doctrines of agency/respondeat superior.  Because they were the custodian of the information and they didn’t employ reasonable standards to safeguard the personal information, they are then the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s suffering and liable for damages.  Which is probably not quite the right situation here.

 

 

HOWEVER, I did find a (what I believe to be) legitimate way to recover damages from the banks.  Florida law allows for recovery of damages. If you read FL Stat. Ann. §772.11, “Civil Remedy for Theft or Exploitation” (see “Document B”), it states that, if you can prove a violation of §§812.012-812.037, you can recover treble damages as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.  You cannot recover punitive damages.  It also lays out special procedures you must follow before you may file an action for damages.  The sections that I believe are actually applicable are §§812.012 (“Definitions”), 812.014 (“Theft”), and 812.019 (“Dealing in Stolen Property”).  The best way for you to understand what I’m talking about would be to read the relevant sections (see “Document C”).  Essentially, my thought process is that if you can show the bank obtained the property by fraud in order to temporarily or permanently benefit from the property, or that the bank coordinated the theft of the property where the value of the property exceeds $3,000, you’ll have them for theft under 812.014.  Which would then allow you to recover damages under §772.11.  OR, if you show that the bank “initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property” and “traffics in such stolen property” AKA they “buy, receive, possess, obtain control of, or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of such property”, then you would again be able to recover damages.  Just to be clear, “‘property’ means anything of value”, examples being “real property” as well as “tangible or intangible personal property, including…interests and claims”. 

 

DOCUMENT A

 

 

 

817.568. Criminal use of personal identification information

 

(1) As used in this section, the term:

 

(a) “Access device” means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, personal identification number, or other telecommunications service, equipment, or instrument identifier, or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds, other than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument.

 

(b) “Authorization” means empowerment, permission, or competence to act.

 

(c) “Harass” means to engage in conduct directed at a specific person that is intended to cause substantial emotional distress to such person and serves no legitimate purpose. “Harass” does not mean to use personal identification information for accepted commercial purposes. The term does not include constitutionally protected conduct such as organized protests or the use of personal identification information for accepted commercial purposes.

 

(d) “Individual” means a single human being and does not mean a firm, association of individuals, corporation, partnership, joint venture, sole proprietorship, or any other entity.

 

(e) “Person” means a “person” as defined in s. 1.01(3).

 

(f) “Personal identification information” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any:

 

1. Name, postal or electronic mail address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, official state-issued or United States-issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, Medicaid or food assistance account number, bank account number, credit or debit card number, or personal identification number or code assigned to the holder of a debit card by the issuer to permit authorized electronic use of such card;

 

2. Unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation;

 

3. Unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code;

 

4. Medical records;

 

5. Telecommunication identifying information or access device; or

 

6. Other number or information that can be used to access a person’s financial resources.

 

(g) “Counterfeit or fictitious personal identification information” means any counterfeit, fictitious, or fabricated information in the similitude of the data outlined in paragraph (f) that, although not truthful or accurate, would in context lead a reasonably prudent person to credit its truthfulness and accuracy.

 

 

 

(2)(a) Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual’s consent, commits the offense of fraudulent use of personal identification information, which is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

(b) Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual’s consent commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the pecuniary benefit, the value of the services received, the payment sought to be avoided, or the amount of the injury or fraud perpetrated is $5,000 or more or if the person fraudulently uses the personal identification information of 10 or more individuals, but fewer than 20 individuals, without their consent. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence any person convicted of committing the offense described in this paragraph to a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.

 

(c) Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual’s consent commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the pecuniary benefit, the value of the services received, the payment sought to be avoided, or the amount of the injury or fraud perpetrated is $50,000 or more or if the person fraudulently uses the personal identification information of 20 or more individuals, but fewer than 30 individuals, without their consent. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence any person convicted of committing the offense described in this paragraph to a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. If the pecuniary benefit, the value of the services received, the payment sought to be avoided, or the amount of the injury or fraud perpetrated is $100,000 or more, or if the person fraudulently uses the personal identification information of 30 or more individuals without their consent, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence any person convicted of committing the offense described in this paragraph to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

 

 

 

(3) Neither paragraph (2)(b) nor paragraph (2)(c) prevents a court from imposing a greater sentence of incarceration as authorized by law. If the minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment imposed under paragraph (2)(b) or paragraph (2)(c) exceed the maximum sentences authorized under s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, the mandatory minimum sentence must be imposed. If the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment under paragraph (2)(b) or paragraph (2)(c) are less than the sentence that could be imposed under s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921, the sentence imposed by the court must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as required by paragraph (2)(b) or paragraph (2)(c).

 

 

 

(4) Any person who willfully and without authorization possesses, uses, or attempts to use personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual’s consent, and who does so for the purpose of harassing that individual, commits the offense of harassment by use of personal identification information, which is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

 

 

(5) If an offense prohibited under this section was facilitated or furthered by the use of a public record, as defined in s. 119.011, the offense is reclassified to the next higher degree as follows:

 

(a) A misdemeanor of the first degree is reclassified as a felony of the third degree.

 

(b) A felony of the third degree is reclassified as a felony of the second degree.

 

(c) A felony of the second degree is reclassified as a felony of the first degree.

 

For purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, a felony offense that is reclassified under this subsection is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 of the felony offense committed, and a misdemeanor offense that is reclassified under this subsection is ranked in level 2 of the offense severity ranking chart in s. 921.0022.

 

 

 

(6) Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning an individual who is less than 18 years of age without first obtaining the consent of that individual or of his or her legal guardian commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

 

 

(7) Any person who is in the relationship of parent or legal guardian, or who otherwise exercises custodial authority over an individual who is less than 18 years of age, who willfully and fraudulently uses personal identification information of that individual commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

 

 

(8)(a) Any person who willfully and fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning a deceased individual commits the offense of fraudulent use or possession with intent to use personal identification information of a deceased individual, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

(b) Any person who willfully and fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning a deceased individual commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the pecuniary benefit, the value of the services received, the payment sought to be avoided, or the amount of injury or fraud perpetrated is $5,000 or more, or if the person fraudulently uses the personal identification information of 10 or more but fewer than 20 deceased individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence any person convicted of committing the offense described in this paragraph to a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.

 

(c) Any person who willfully and fraudulently uses personal identification information concerning a deceased individual commits the offense of aggravated fraudulent use of the personal identification information of multiple deceased individuals, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the pecuniary benefit, the value of the services received, the payment sought to be avoided, or the amount of injury or fraud perpetrated is $50,000 or more, or if the person fraudulently uses the personal identification information of 20 or more but fewer than 30 deceased individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence any person convicted of the offense described in this paragraph to a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. If the pecuniary benefit, the value of the services received, the payment sought to be avoided, or the amount of the injury or fraud perpetrated is $100,000 or more, or if the person fraudulently uses the personal identification information of 30 or more deceased individuals, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall sentence any person convicted of an offense described in this paragraph to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

 

 

 

(9) Any person who willfully and fraudulently creates or uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, counterfeit or fictitious personal identification information concerning a fictitious individual, or concerning a real individual without first obtaining that real individual’s consent, with intent to use such counterfeit or fictitious personal identification information for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of a fraud on another person, commits the offense of fraudulent creation or use, or possession with intent to fraudulently use, counterfeit or fictitious personal identification information, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

 

 

(10) Any person who commits an offense described in this section and for the purpose of obtaining or using personal identification information misrepresents himself or herself to be a law enforcement officer; an employee or representative of a bank, credit card company, credit counseling company, or credit reporting agency; or any person who wrongfully represents that he or she is seeking to assist the victim with a problem with the victim’s credit history shall have the offense reclassified as follows:

 

(a) In the case of a misdemeanor, the offense is reclassified as a felony of the third degree.

 

(b) In the case of a felony of the third degree, the offense is reclassified as a felony of the second degree.

 

(c) In the case of a felony of the second degree, the offense is reclassified as a felony of the first degree.

 

(d) In the case of a felony of the first degree or a felony of the first degree punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding life, the offense is reclassified as a life felony.

 

For purposes of sentencing under chapter 921, a felony offense that is reclassified under this subsection is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed, and a misdemeanor offense that is reclassified under this subsection is ranked in level 2 of the offense severity ranking chart.

 

 

 

(11) The prosecutor may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this section and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of that person’s accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals or of any other person engaged in fraudulent possession or use of personal identification information. The arresting agency shall be given an opportunity to be heard in aggravation or mitigation in reference to any such motion. Upon good cause shown, the motion may be filed and heard in camera. The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if the judge finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance.

 

 

 

(12) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of this state or any of its political subdivisions, of any other state or its political subdivisions, or of the Federal Government or its political subdivisions.

 

 

 

(13)

 

(a) In sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense under this section, the court may order that the defendant make restitution under s. 775.089 to any victim of the offense. In addition to the victim’s out-of-pocket costs, restitution may include payment of any other costs, including attorney’s fees incurred by the victim in clearing the victim’s credit history or credit rating, or any costs incurred in connection with any civil or administrative proceeding to satisfy any debt, lien, or other obligation of the victim arising as the result of the actions of the defendant.

 

(b) The sentencing court may issue such orders as are necessary to correct any public record that contains false information given in violation of this section.

 

 

 

(14) Prosecutions for violations of this section may be brought on behalf of the state by any state attorney or by the statewide prosecutor.

 

 

 

(15) The Legislature finds that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the location where a victim gives or fails to give consent to the use of personal identification information is the county where the victim generally resides.

 

 

 

(16) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, venue for the prosecution and trial of violations of this section may be commenced and maintained in any county in which an element of the offense occurred, including the county where the victim generally resides.

 

 

 

(17) A prosecution of an offense prohibited under subsection (2), subsection (6), or subsection (7) must be commenced within 3 years after the offense occurred. However, a prosecution may be commenced within 1 year after discovery of the offense by an aggrieved party, or by a person who has a legal duty to represent the aggrieved party and who is not a party to the offense, if such prosecution is commenced within 5 years after the violation occurred.

 

 

 

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 817.568 (West)


 

DOCUMENT B

 

 

772.11. Civil remedy for theft or exploitation

 

 

 

(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been injured in any fashion by reason of any violation of ss. 812.012-812.037…has a cause of action for threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts. Before filing an action for damages under this section, the person claiming injury must make a written demand for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages under this section. If the person to whom a written demand is made complies with such demand within 30 days after receipt of the demand, that person shall be given a written release from further civil liability for the specific act of theft or exploitation by the person making the written demand. Any person who has a cause of action under this section may recover the damages allowed under this section from the parents or legal guardian of any unemancipated minor who lives with his or her parents or legal guardian and who is liable for damages under this section. Punitive damages may not be awarded under this section. The defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon a finding that the claimant raised a claim that was without substantial fact or legal support.  In awarding attorney’s fees and costs under this section, the court may not consider the ability of the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. This section does not limit any right to recover attorney’s fees or costs provided under any other law.

 

 

 

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 772.11 (West)


 

DOCUMENT C

 

 

 

812.012. Definitions

 

 

 

As used in ss. 812.012-812.037:

 

 

(3) “Obtains or uses” means any manner of:

 

(a) Taking or exercising control over property.

 

(b) Making any unauthorized use, disposition, or transfer of property.

 

(c) Obtaining property by fraud, willful misrepresentation of a future act, or false promise.

 

(d)1. Conduct previously known as stealing; larceny; purloining; abstracting; embezzlement; misapplication; misappropriation; conversion; or obtaining money or property by false pretenses, fraud, or deception; or

 

2. Other conduct similar in nature.

 

(4) “Property” means anything of value, and includes:

 

(a) Real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land.

 

(b) Tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims.

 

(c) Services.

 

(5) “Property of another” means property in which a person has an interest upon which another person is not privileged to infringe without consent, whether or not the other person also has an interest in the property.

 

 

(7) “Stolen property” means property that has been the subject of any criminally wrongful taking.

 

(8) “Traffic” means:

 

(a) To sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of property.

 

(b) To buy, receive, possess, obtain control of, or use property with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense, or otherwise dispose of such property.

 

(9) “Enterprise” means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other legal entity, or any unchartered union, association, or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.

 

(10) “Value” means value determined according to any of the following:

 

(a)1. Value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the offense or, if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the offense.

 

2. The value of a written instrument that does not have a readily ascertainable market value, in the case of an instrument such as a check, draft, or promissory note, is the amount due or collectible or is, in the case of any other instrument which creates, releases, discharges, or otherwise affects any valuable legal right, privilege, or obligation, the greatest amount of economic loss that the owner of the instrument might reasonably suffer by virtue of the loss of the instrument.

 

 

(c) Amounts of value of separate properties involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether the thefts are from the same person or from several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.

 

 

 

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 812.012 (West)

 

 

 

 

 

812.014. Theft

 

 

 

(1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:

 

(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property.

 

(b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.

 

(2) (a) 1. If the property stolen is valued at $100,000 or more…

 

 

(b) 1. If the property stolen is valued at $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000;

 

 

(6) A person who individually, or in concert with one or more other persons, coordinates the activities of one or more persons in committing theft … where the stolen property has a value in excess of $3,000 commits a felony of the second degree…

 

 

 

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 812.014 (West)

 

 

 

 

812.019. Dealing in stolen property

 

 

(1) Any person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, property that he or she knows or should know was stolen shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree…

 

(2) Any person who initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, or supervises the theft of property and traffics in such stolen property shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree…

 

 

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 812.019 (West)

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads

81 Responses

  1. http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/07/news/companies/aig.fortune/index.htm

    Some of the companies who benefited from the AIG bailout (apparently it was worse than pulling teeth to get this list, which list is said to differ from another larger list), which reminds me: it’s Barclay’s that ended up with a big chunk of Lehman’s loan portfolio, many of which imo Aurora
    the servicer purported to own.

  2. You know, in re-reading my comment to Bob, I had some second thoughts. If a bank has to pay out on a CDS, where does a bank get the money? Even if a bank could get the money outside its depositors moolah, what is the impact to its publicly traded shares for such a risky proposition? Is a CDS a proper deal, risk, for a bank to enter? Now, Bob, I’ll say I don’t know, but I don’t see how it can be, not if payout involves the use of deposits (got me) and not if its stock is publicly traded. I don’t actually know who entered into CDS’s, so tell, tell, who did?

    .

  3. @Bob – yes, I understand that and that’s my issue. Banksters, or whomever, were and are free to enter CDS’s without interest in the objects of their bets. That’s just not true for regulated insurors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that insurance companies write insurance for those with insurable interests only.
    Regulated insurors are not in the biz of underwriting, insuring ‘bets’.
    AIG wouldn’t write an insurance contract for me in regard to YOUR house; I don’t have an insurable interest. For the same reason, an insurance co. wouldn’t write insurance for me as to a financial instrument or contract in which I have no interest.

  4. JG

    Here’s a hint.

    CDS r not insurance contracts as u understand them. They do not require an insurable interest. I Don’t need to own IBM stock in order to buy a put option on it.

    CDS are hedging and speculative instruments. In essence they are put options on a security or portfolio of securities. They are traded daily just like option contracts. As such their price will fluctuate daily just like any other stock, bond or option. More tomorrow.

  5. Jg

    This has all been covered a zillion times before. U have a fundamental misunderstanding about how all this stuff worx. Email me in the a.m. at Livlies2013@gmail.com if u wud like me to explain.

  6. christine linked an anti-eminent domain case. I took a gander. Doubt the investors voted in favor of the suit, or if they did, they were manipulated from here to hell and back. I admit investors wouldn’t be in favor of anything that would lessen their returns. No one would be. Just not so sure this plan would do that. More likely it enlarges the banksters’ liability. Not sure any trustees have authority to bring any actions like that, actually. The banksters say, as they always say, it will make home loans more expensive. Well, you rat-b’s, how have your other plans worked out? How do we quantify the true cost of their alleged lower-cost loans to date? I doubt we could. No one won except a handful of mucks who by all appearances moved the money off-shore and further hold our government hostage by the power of a single key stroke.
    Still, as to em domain, it’s troublesome in that most of us haven’t taken the time to fully explore it, including me. God knows what devils lurk or could lurk in the details.
    As long as the GSE’s participate in “securitization” or accept MERS mortgages, they can kiss our American gritz imo, so tootaloo. ” Don’t let the screen door hit you on your way out”

  7. If the banksters had insurable interests, it’s because they owned the loans (and the trust investors who paid held security interests). The loan owner is generally the real party in interest. Can we agree on that? Now, this is a conundrum, at least for me. One must suffer injury to invoke court jurisdiction. The loan owners, here the banksters who did not transfer the loans as they should have*, have been paid for the loans, so they will suffer no injury by the note’s non-payment by its maker…except to the extent they owe the secured party either the note (“intact:) or ?
    Is “?” the money advanced by a note purchaser, as in fork over the note and all payments made – or – return the money paid (with interest?)

    Who is the real party in interest on a note which has been bought but not delivered? I suggest no one, that the note is not enforceable against (just) its maker in that state. The bankster doesn’t want to try to enforce it in its own name because that would expose the non-delivery, plus the fact that the bankster remains primarily liable on the note to the secured party (the guy who paid but didn’t get). But COULD a bankster, or anyone who has been paid for a note, yet enforce it against its maker? Wouldn’t it be fraud since he sold his interest and thus has none? Maybe so. Probably even.
    The guy who paid but didn’t get must barrel thru the primary obligor, the bankster, before coming after the guy who is secondarily liable to the investor, the note maker. In other words, that guy must file suit, and must name the note seller who didn’t deliver (or he could demand out of court to be made whole, I suppose).

    Does the UCC (never minding any other considerations which might be relevant here) provide that an indentured party may assign a note years later (or later at any rate) to the secured party in partial satisfaction of his own debt/ liability to the secured party, such that the secured party is now the party with the rights against the note maker? Well, I suppose so IF the secured party would agree to it. But the secured party would have to agree to it. I can think of no reason a secured party, here the trust, would agree to accept a note so much later, not without being made whole: the trust is owed whatever was the amt owing on the note at the time the trust paid for the note, not its current alleged balance, less any monies received to date.
    Why would a trust, or anyone in his right mind, accept a transfer of a note which is in default? “That’s just the best I can get”? No, that’s not it, because the note seller is liable to the secured party for the amt owing on the date the sec’d party paid for the note. The seller may be entitled to any credit relevant to payments made to the buyer, but that’s it. He owes the buyer ‘everything else’.

    * all these notes are allegedly being assigned to the trusts by “MERS” assignments and they are all post-default affairs. (Dylan come to mind again: “Here’s your throat back. Thanks for the loan.”) The assignments are prima facie evidence of post-default assignments of the notes to the trusts, and accordingly, they are prima facie evidence the trust is not a holder in due course and therefore subject to every affirmative defense in the world, That’s another reason no one is his right mind would accept a post-default note. As to that, we only need to remember the trust is not a holder in due course (which means among other things, it is subject to a claim of prior payment by a third party, like say AIG, to the seller who didn’t deliver.

    Back to the UCC: does it provide that a note seller may make a tardy delivery of a note (with a balance not the balance paid for) in at least partial satisfaction for the seller’s primary obligation to the buyer and make the buyer now the party who will be injured by the maker’s non-payment? (I don’t think so, but don’t know. It doesn’t bother me too much that I and others here don’t know, but it bothers me that attorneys representing homeowners don’t know, either.)

    I first of all note that can’t be done, not without the buyer’s consent, certainly not a note that’s in default. Would you take a note in default that you paid for when it wasn’t in default?! No, you wouldn’t. You’d say, as would I, give me my money back, sucker! But that’s what’s going on here (unless it changes because NG is correct and the investors have always been the rpii’s because their money didn’t buy notes they didn’t get, it funded them)
    Taking the “MERS” assignment as factual, to me it’s unavoidable that it’s a 1) current assignment of 2) a defaulted note. So it’s also true to me that a court couldn’t avoid the reasonable insistance that there be evidence a trust (or anyone) is accepting a post-default note. It isn’t just the trust cut-off date, a biggie of course; it’s also that the note is in default when allegedly being assigned by “MERS”.
    In that regard, I think MERS is crazy, plain crazy, to allow servicers to use its name to do these assignments. (But MERS got its
    tap-dancing shoes long before we did and they’ve got professional choreographers to boot).
    The first thing the banksters, when confronted with the asst of a defaulted note, are going to say is that the ‘assignment’ of the note is not a current event; it’s just a memorialization of a past event. As if. That’s pretty much what one bankster (scribd**) said to the court about the assgt of the note: it’s just superfluous since MERS has no authority to assign a note. We need to ask the bankster if it is relying for its position on the assignment of the note in a request for a more definitive statement before we do much of anything when we can.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74846427/PHH-ADMITS-MERS-MAY-NOT-ASSIGN-NOTE

  8. JG

    RE AIG

    Why not just call the New York State Insurance Commissioner’s Office in Albany and ask them what happened? If anybody knows, it would be them.

  9. Well, I’ll take e. tolle’s lead with ms.
    MS, I do believe, as e. tolle. phrased it (so well, as usual) that you think you have the holy grail. And maybe you do. We can’t tell, can we?
    When you started down this road, you might have thought you were going to make the money you may be entitled to as a result of your efforts. Problem is, no one’s buying. It isn’t that we aren’t trying to believe you have a contribution (as in not buying it figuratively); it’s that we can’t see it by your design for wanting to hold those cards til they’re paid for. I sorrily suggest you’re not going to reap the rewards you wanted, even as you may be entitled to them, and I’m not kidding – sorry about that for you. But surely after all this time you must see
    you’re not getting rich quick (or at all) by keeping what you know for sale.
    You might as well spit it out. You might start thinking of another angle to make moolah from your acumen. If you have what we need, give it away or you may go to the grave with it. Don’t know how to better say that – I don’t have e tolle’s writing skills. Give it up – give it away before it’s too late. Better to be remembered (and thanked) and poor than not remembered and poor? Just a suggestion you might consider……….I can imagine how you’ll receive this, so maybe you’ll wait a few minutes before responding?

  10. @christine et al – dont’ mean to or want to “bite” anybody (x maybe “MERS”). The thing is, fwiw. I’m not getting off AIG any more than I’m getting off MERS, as in MERS has to go. AIG was and is a regulated insuror. No, I’m no insurance guru. Don’t think I need to be to posit that as such AIG wasn’t, or at least shouldn’t have been, in the business of taking “bets” by parties with no interest to insure. AIG’s role in this mess has been ignored by most, and definitely by those of us here. I’m going to learn what AIG insured and for whom and could use all the help I can get. If AIG made insurance on insurable interests in our loans, then there is a ramification or 10 to amts due by makers of notes. If the insurable interest were subject to the interests created as a matter of law by the UCC*, there are ramifications to the investors and thus, again, to the amts due on those notes.
    *The UCC says if I pay you for a note and you don’t transfer it to me,
    I have security interests for the full amt of the note at the time of transfer, not some amt I can garner later by foreclosure against the maker. If you don’t transfer that note to me, you are and remain primarily liable to me for that note amt with interest accruing at the note rate if not some statutory rate. It also says I have a right to a transfer of that note. It doesn’t say you can wait til there’s default and then try to pawn the inevitable loss on me, which is what banksters are doing to trust investors UNless the banksters are paying the investors the
    “short”, the diff between the face amt at time of the note sale and what is realized at f/c sale, which they might just be doing and should be doing. If they must and are paying the ‘short’, that would explain why properties sit for months and months and months: the banksters / servicers are eating that ‘short’ by way of ‘fees’ during that time. There’s a reason some loans are sent to “default servicers” and I’m very unhappy to report I don’t yet know the all of why.

    Back to AIG:
    I can’t quote chapter and verse, but my money is on the UCC further saying that an indentured party has to pass any payment from anyone during the life of the loan to the secured party, and that would include insurance proceeds. But that’s not our problem exactly, that is, whether or not indentured parties (banksters) receiving insurance payouts forked over the monies to those (investors) with security interests on the contracts (our loans) which were insured. What’s our issue is the banksters having an insurable interest. If they did, those payouts paid our notes dollar for dollar. Insurance on notes and contracts is new to most if not all of us, including the judiciary. Judges may be saying bah humbug on credit default swap ramifications because they don’t understand them – or- because CDS’s are bets by those with no interest. But insurance by an insuror is something else altogether.
    If my home is insured and my neighbor burns it down, I can’t collect from him AND my insurance co. My insurance co. contractually owns my right to go after him; they are subrogated to my rights. I cannot
    get a double recovery as a matter of law – one from insurance and one from the neighbor. But it looks to me that with AIG and the bankster, that’s what’s going on: AIG made payouts to the insured (bankster) and the insured (same bankster) yet wants to go after the note maker. And just because AIG waived subrogation, it stilll doesn’t mean a person (bankster) may avoid the laws against double recovery. All that means is that AIG kissed goodbye whatever it paid out with no chance of recovering against a note maker (the neighbor in my example). The question of why AIG would do that is unavoidable, and it makes a difference, at least to me, for now as to WHEN AIG waived subrogation because if AIG did so at the time of insurance, it did so imo because the investors already had secured interests which , as I said, would be senior to AIG’s claims (so why bother trying to assert rights of subrogation after others’ senior interests). What’s louder, really loud, is the banksters having an insurable interest in the first place, when they were supposed to have sold and delivered the objects of insurance to others. FNMA, say, would have had insurable interests under
    their guarantee to the trusts, but I haven’t heard of FNMA taking
    insurance (which doesn’t mean it didn’t). IF FNMA took insurance and got it, they can’t have a double-recovery (against a note-maker), either.

    @christine et al – dont’ mean to or want to “bite” anybody (x maybe “MERS”). The thing is, fwiw. I’m not getting off AIG any more than I’m getting off MERS, as in MERS has to go. AIG was and is a regulated insuror. No, I’m no insurance guru. Don’t think I need to be to posit that as such AIG wasn’t, or at least shouldn’t have been, in the business of taking “bets” by parties with no interest to insure. AIG’s role in this mess has been ignored by most, and definitely by those of us here. I’m going to learn what AIG insured and for whom and could use all the help I can get. If AIG made insurance on insurable interests in our loans, then there is a ramification or 10 to amts due by makers of notes. If the insurable interest were subject to the interests created as a matter of law by the UCC*, there are ramifications to the investors and thus, again, to the amts due on those notes.
    *The UCC says if I pay you for a note and you don’t transfer it to me,
    I have security interests for the full amt of the note at the time of transfer, not some amt I can garner later by foreclosure against the maker. If you don’t transfer that note to me, you are and remain primarily liable to me for that note amt with interest accruing at the note rate if not some statutory rate. It also says I have a right to a transfer of that note. It doesn’t say you can wait til there’s default and then try to pawn the inevitable loss on me, which is what banksters are doing to trust investors UNless the banksters are paying the investors the
    “short”, the diff between the face amt at time of the note sale and what is realized at f/c sale, which they might just be doing and should be doing. If they must and are paying the ‘short’, that would explain why properties sit for months and months and months: the banksters / servicers are eating that ‘short’ by way of ‘fees’ during that time. There’s a reason some loans are sent to “default servicers” and I’m very unhappy to report I don’t yet know the all of why.

    Back to AIG:
    I can’t quote chapter and verse, but my money is on the UCC further saying that an indentured party has to pass any payment from anyone during the life of the loan to the secured party, and that would include insurance proceeds. But that’s not our problem exactly, that is, whether or not indentured parties (banksters) receiving insurance payouts forked over the monies to those (investors) with security interests on the contracts (our loans) which were insured. What’s our issue is the banksters having an insurable interest. If they did, those payouts paid our notes dollar for dollar. Insurance on notes and contracts is new to most if not all of us, including the judiciary. Judges may be saying bah humbug on credit default swap ramifications because they don’t understand them – or- because CDS’s are bets by those with no interest. But insurance by an insuror is something else altogether.
    If my home is insured and my neighbor burns it down, I can’t collect from him AND my insurance co. My insurance co. contractually owns my right to go after him; they are subrogated to my rights. I cannot
    get a double recovery as a matter of law – one from insurance and one from the neighbor. But it looks to me that with AIG and the bankster, that’s what’s going on: AIG made payouts to the insured (bankster) and the insured (same bankster) yet wants to go after the note maker. And just because AIG waived subrogation, it stilll doesn’t mean a person (bankster) may avoid the laws against double recovery. All that means is that AIG kissed goodbye whatever it paid out with no chance of recovering against a note maker (the neighbor in my example). The question of why AIG would do that is unavoidable, and it makes a difference, at least to me, for now as to WHEN AIG waived subrogation because if AIG did so at the time of insurance, it did so because the investors already had secured interests which , as I said, would be senior to AIG’s claims (so why bother trying to assert rights of subrogation after
    others’ senior interests). What’s louder, really loud, is the banksters having an insurable interest in the first place, when they were supposed to have sold and delivered the objects of insurance to others. FNMA, say, would have had insurable interests under
    their guarantee to the trusts, but I haven’t heard of FNMA taking
    insurance (which doesn’t mean it didn’t). IF FNMA took insurance and got it, they can’t have a double-recovery (against a note-maker), either.

    NO one is entitled to double recovery under any set of facts.

  11. If Reagan’s former Assistant Secretary of Treasury says so, I think I’ll listen… In fact, he’s been extremely vocal now for quite some time and I tend to agree with what he states.

  12. That guy is at the origin of many of the woes HSBC and UBS have been inflicted in the past 6 months. Another does who didn’t sit and bitch all day… The good thing is, whatever people don’t do here, someone out there is doing it. But people shouldn’t complain if other come out on top and this country keeps going down, down, down. Get off the the couch and the TV and read and take action.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/08/how-the-edward-snowden-of-banking-is-blowing-the-whistle-on-secret-swiss-accounts/

    ‘It’s an economic war’: How the Edward Snowden of banking is blowing the whistle on secret Swiss accounts
    Republish Reprint

    The New York Times | 13/08/08 | Last Updated: 13/08/09 12:00 AM ET

    Former French employee of HSBC Private Bank Herve Falciani collected data on at least 24,000 customers of HSBC’s Swiss subsidiaries from 2006 to 2008, while he worked in the bank’s information technology development unit in Geneva, which he then passed on to French authorities. The data is at the centre of a row between France and Switzerland over suspicions of tax evasion by French citizens using Swiss bank accounts.

  13. I have been fighting against “no judge or prosecutor would ever go against bank fraudsters because they work for them” for quite some time and I think this is the most defeatists statement anyone in foreclosure ought to profess. It doesn’t help anyone’s case and, better yet, that attitude shows in court. I can pick in any courtroom the guys who have only contempt for judges and attorneys: it can’t be hidden. I can also pick those who will fold at the first direct question. Those who are unprepared, unfocused, unreasonable, etc.

    In the majority of cases, 95%, people don’t fight. Those who do pro se don’t get proper advice, don’t read cases from beginning to end, don’t try to understand what happened and why and follow anything they hear or read indiscriminately. Civil rights violations and violations of the Sherman Act don’[t have any place in foreclosure defense. Going after the appraiser as the main party in a foreclosure defense is not the smartest thing to do. Screaming "empty trust, empty trust" is stupid, especially without ever going to file anything in court. There are rules to follow. People don't follow them, lose and bite everyone's head off.

    Among those with attorney, it all depends on what is being alleged and whether people are in a defensive or offensive position. Are there attorneys who prey on clients? Hell yes! We've all dealt with a few. I lost 6,000 to them myself. Yet people don't file complaints. All they do is bitch and moan about judges and attorneys. No action whatsoever.

    All the following happened in 2007. I believe altogether, those represented something like 54 cases dismissed on the same grounds. Had more people fought at that time, we'd be out of the dump. People don't fight. They don't voice their discontent. They don't write their representatives. they don't contact their AG. They sit and bitch all day. That's what they've been doing for 6 years!

    Federal Judge James S. GWIN, of the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division), has dismissed at least an additional eight (8) Ohio mortgage foreclosures due to the failure of the plaintiff to comply with Court Rules and to affirmatively demonstrate standing to litigate as of the inception of the litigation. The dismissals of these cases are shown in the following opinions handed down over a three week period from November 20, 2007, through December 11, 2007, published on LEXIS-NEXIS:

    LaSalle Bank v. Lyons, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-2733, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90922, December 11, 2007, Decided, December 11, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Kelbacher, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-2401, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94310, December 4, 2007, Decided, December 4, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Deutsche Nat’l Bank Trust Co. v. Mays, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-02334, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88683, December 3, 2007, Decided, December 3, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ivy, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-2453, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88679, December 3, 2007, Decided, December 3, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Deutsche Nat’l Bank Trust Co. v. Nash, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-02994, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88677, December 3, 2007, Decided, December 3, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Hanna, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-02513, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91707, November 30, 2007, Decided, November 30, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Flachbart, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-2559, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90458, November 29, 2007, Decided, November 29, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Abdulla, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-2176, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89625, November 20, 2007, Decided, November 20, 2007, Filed. [Judge James S. GWIN]

    Judge GWIN’s dismissals closely correspond to the previous decisions of Judges Christopher A. BOYKO, Thomas M. ROSE and Kathleen M. O’MALLEY. Also noteworthy is that fact that only one of the defendants was represented by counsel and in each instance the Court acted sua sponte to DISMISS based upon the lack of standing readily apparent from the record. In fact in six of the eight instances, the Court acted sua sponte upon an UNOPPOSED motion for default or unopposed motion for order of sale.

    Those cases can be found on Pacer.

    The primary significance of these orders is that they reflect the rulings of a fifth Federal Judge separate from Judges Christopher A. BOYKO, Thomas M. ROSE, Kathleen M. O’MALLEY and John D. HOLSCHUH, whose rulings relating to standing have already been noted within this Forum. This reflects the widespread embrace of the BOYKO rationale throughout the Federal bench in Ohio.

  14. some of the answers to some of the bloggers on this site you may find in ( New York times best selling author,) David Limbaugh,s book CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY.

    re 1099- look at the difference between 1099A and 1099C. in certain cases that exhibit is a problem (1099a) it is a controversy re real party in interest. just do the research, I cant argue with you Bob because you are clueless about my particular case, so , your questions were not answered in a way your particular “bent” needed to hear it, sorry I called you a Fake. I plant seeds because im not an attorney and try to be careful not to give the opposition a loophole, and its up to the individual to research and see if it can help in their own case. this site gets too unfriendly a times which doesn’t bring out the best in us, so I think its time for a change for me personally.
    I have had good support on here until past few months, I called Neil for help and his daughter told me to basically purchase from the store without even knowing my set of circumstances, I was pretty disappointed with the impersonal boutique style approach.
    Ive gone through about 80K litigating over 4 years, I think I learned somethings about the playing field and my case, its too late to turn back the clock. ONWARD.
    peace to all.

  15. Boyko was never appealed against so how could he have been overturned?
    But problem is he was just a district court not a court of appeal so didn’t count as much…
    & Bob G is right that no judge or prosecutor would ever go against bank fraudsters because they work for them.
    We should all know that by now.

  16. “Boyko did, but if memory serves, he was overturned.” Can’t verify that he was. DB did file a motion for reconsideration and lost (without prejudice). Don’t believe it ever refiled anything.

    http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/assets/Clerks_Office_and_Court_Records/Notable-Cases/107cv02282.pdf

  17. E. Tolle said:

    “That is how it goes in courts across the land. Don’t anyone give me this shit about the law simply needing to build up over the bodies of mortgagors, slowly building case law, or about what inning we’re in. And don’t expect any cries of jubilation from me over a ruling like Glaski in CA. Woopdie-fucking-doo. A court finally rules for established law. Once. After watching them lie and steal in concert with 100% fraud for six years now. Only one judge in this entire nation, the Honorable Judge Shack in NY, gets it. Boyko did, but if memory serves, he was overturned. The rest are front-running this entire crime spree.”

    I second that emotion. My sentiments exactly. And along those same lines, what annoys me most about this site is that some here seem to honestly believe that there are magic words or just-right pleadings that will work in court that will turn the crooked courts into defenders of truth and justice and snap them out of their wickedness, if only such words or pleadings were simply spoken aloud or filed. This incredible belief that somehow this hasn’t been done yet is insane. We should not be talking here about precisely what semantic games we should play or which piece of ancient case law that validates Neil’s points is superior to another piece of ancient case law. We should be planning work stoppages, flooding streets around courthouses and government offices with throngs of angry, smart, but peaceful protestors. We need to become Egypt and Brazil.

    Yet I know that, in the words of King Crimson: “I talk to the wind…the wind does not hear…the wind cannot hear.”

  18. God damn, E. Tolle! You got that right–way past time for tar and feathers. They say waterboarding isn’t torture, so that must be okay, too.

  19. Masterservicer, I’m convinced you’re a scammer. You’ve come on here for half a decade or better, spouting about derecognition and subrogation as seen from your lofty perch, mingled with a bunch of childish sputum. Then you have the audacity to slam Neil the Benefactor, or even worse, you go on to ask a bunch of useless question as if you’ve held the Holy Grail and know where it’s hidden but won’t spit out the location. You’re about as beneficial as a case of the clap.

    The only thing truly hidden in your posts is anything whatsoever resembling intelligence.

    Please, prove me wrong. For once, tell people, in simple language…I know….try something new for once….try English this time, tell everyone exactly how to defeat this lopsided system in a paragraph or less.

    If you do that without a single doo-wa-ditty or some other dimwitted remark, I’ll forever leave you alone, or at least not bother you for the next half hour. Nit-wit.

  20. JG,

    Don’t bite me.

    Until I read Bob’s quip this morning, I was functioning under the same assumption as you. And so far (and Bob, please don’t get the big head… you’re bound to trip one of these days too. It’s happened to the best of us in this insane world…), Bob hasn’t written BS. So, that got me thinking and i did a little research. That video made a little clearer for me.

  21. Federal Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws by Congress (not sure about the states). Laws can be made effectv frm date bill is introduced not date passed. Not sure about criml statutes.

    AIG sued over losses on purchased MBS. Haven’t seen any lawsuits by AIG on CDS insurance. Google AIG + MBS + sue.

    Think masterservicer is channeling Stripes.

  22. The trust contract is merely estimated as the trust sale for property OCCURRED LATER DUE TO DE-RECOGNITION .
    Learn the Truth

    But , what does it say about the Title, Grantor and Tax deferred proceeds that cannot avoid the capital gains due PAID at a later date.

    Leave a Reply
    registerclaims@live.com

  23. E. ToLLe,

    Lets go….do it Ash whole …tell me

    Where is the bailment
    Who is the Bailie
    Why is there no note
    Why is the deed notional ….moron
    Where does a 18 year accelerated loan fit into a 30 year mortgage
    Who is the trustee in every matter sweet meat
    What is a built in return ….

    Lets try thin imbecile…..
    Debt = Bond
    Shares = Equity

    Block head —are you forming an indenture with debt… really are you come on porn star ….you been up all night on the internet again

    Speak web site porn master – speak

  24. Masterservicer said, “….so are the attorneys NG has caused the banks to slice through American foreclosure with absolute ease….I was one of them.”

    So now you’re claiming to be an attorney, after all the denials?

    Scrape together what’s left of your mind MS, and quietly go where no one has gone before, save for stripes…..to the EXIT.

  25. Neil Garfield and who ever contributed and contributes to this blog is a major contributor in educating the People.

    Neil Garfield is wrong , so are the attorneys NG has caused the banks to slice through American foreclosure with absolute ease….I was one of them . Amen I say to you – Garfield you will have to stand the test of every homeowner asking him why you said what he did with regards to foreclosure .

    There is no note – Why
    There is no loan – Why
    No note and no loan – Does a Robo affidavit or gratuitous anything really matter ….You want proof- don’t you.

    See the FIVE steps for forming a conduit SPV for parking appreciable assets under a charitable tax deferred whereas the seller, issuer and depositor are allowed to defer income as commercially sold annuities.

    For God’s sake – how can you place a mortgage property into an irrevocable. Garfield – you have to wake up – this is absurd -what your doing.

  26. okay, christine, I’ll watch the video. As a former AIG employee, right?, you should know, I guess, but save me some work just now if you would. If AIG’s credit default swaps didn’t insure the banksters, then who did it insure, pray tell, on those CDS’s? For whose benefit did
    AIG waive subrogation IF subrogation were waived as a result of the fed bailout? If AIG waived subrogation before the bailout, imo it did so because others (investors) already held security interests which would have been senior to AIG’s subrogation rights (that or we’re back to AIG making insurance on uninsurable interests.
    Maybe you can help me (the rest of us) out and tell me/us why a regulated insuror was participating in default swaps in the first place?
    I dont get it, I admit.

  27. Concerning the NSA and the blatant over-reach by the Obama administration, there’s this:

    “Some lawmakers have said that when they passed the law they did not think that they were authorizing the bulk collection of virtually all Americans’ phone records.”

    How convenient. Who actually reads these bills anymore? Certainly not lawmakers or their staff.

    Concerning the passage of a bill in Colorado that allowed the foreclosure mill that controls about 90 percent of the cases filed in Colorado — and conspired to fix the price to post those notices at $125, an amount five times more than what other companies charged for the same service, one of the two legislators who sponsored the bill said, “ [the] “revelations were “shocking”, while the other said he, “….he feels ‘duped’ after the revelations”. I would love to see if in fact there was any money exchanged in that process.

    I’ve said it before, the so-called MERS statute that was passed in MN in 2004, was written by MERS, for MERS, and to add insult to injury, had this little blurb at the end of the bill….“….. [this bill] applies to any mortgage, assignment, satisfaction, release, or power of attorney to foreclose executed, recorded, or filed before, on, or after August 1, 2004. Now someone much brighter (all of you here) please tell me how you can make a bill as dicey as this retroactive? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

    Oh, I forgot. The Constitution has been reduced to being nothing more that the oldest commissioned naval vessel. The good news is that a tour of the USS Constitution is free. The bad news is that we aren’t any longer, thanks to our bought and paid for government.

  28. e.tolle – I remember a similar incident. A homeowner had moved for a deserved default judgment. The bankster later moved for SJ without regard to the mtn for DJ. The homeowner was telling the court it needed to rule on the mtn for default. The court said to the homeowner, “well, if I grant the (bankster’s) mtn for SJ, the mtn for default judgment won’t matter, will it?” (Clearly that judge didn’t fear an appeal.)

  29. Whom did AIG insure? Nope. Not the banks. not quite.

    Simple down to dearth video that makes it very, very easy to understand.

    https://www.khanacademy.org/science/core-finance/derivative-securities/credit-default-swaps-tut/v/credit-default-swaps

  30. e.tolle – I have no doubt that happened. I also have no doubt until
    lower court judges fear appeal, it’ll continue.

    from 2011:

    “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s William C. Dudley got a waiver in 2008 to keep personal financial holdings of American International Group Inc. (AIG) after the company received a Fed rescue, a U.S. senator said.
    Dudley, who was the New York Fed’s markets-group chief at the time and is now the bank’s president, is the senior New York Fed official identified in a Government Accountability Office report today as receiving the waiver, Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, said today in a statement. Jack Gutt, a New York Fed spokesman, declined to comment.”

    jg: huh?

  31. @Bob G – fair enough question. ( Where did I get the “notion” AIG
    insured the banksters?)

    Well, I watched a whole lot of news in 2008 (which is where I heard if not learned FNMA abandoned underwriting standards in favor of muck’s production-driven bonuses). I’d have to concede my memory is playing tricks on me these days, but that’s the way I remember it. And I remember viviidly, and don’t question this memory, hearing that AIG waived subrogation. What I can’t recall is if they waived subrogation at the time of ‘insurance’ or if that were part and parcel of the govt’s bailout demands of AIG to protect the banksters at all costs.

    From CNN Money september 2008 (for instance):

    “The failure of AIG could have caused unprecedented global ripple effects, said Robert Bolton, managing director at Mendon Capital Advisors Corp. AIG is a major player in the market for credit default swaps, which are insurance-like contracts that guarantee against a company defaulting on its debt…….

    Rocked by the subprime crisis, the company has lost more than $18 billion in the past nine months and has seen its stock price fall more than 91% so far this year. It already raised $20 billion in fresh capital earlier this year.

    Its troubles stem from its sales of credit default swaps…….

    AIG has written down the value of the credit default swaps by $14.7 billion, pretax, in the first two quarters of this year, and has had to write down the value of its mortgage-backed securities as the housing market soured….”

    Which reminds me of a lingering, nagging deal about Lehman.
    Aurora Loan Services was owned by Lehman (as I think I recall). The govt was hoping, so it was said, that private enterprise would bail out
    Lehman, but it didn’t happen, and they filed the largest bk ever witnessed, which no doubt played a role in the decision for the govt to bailout AIG. Someone (forget who – have to go thru hundred of files to see) picked up a lot of Lehman holdings in that bk, which included Lehman’s mortgage portfolio. Yet ALS continued to maintain in both jud and non-j foreclosures that it owned loans that it had sent to its parent, Lehman, for securitization or sent to Lehman for any reason.
    Aurora saw its own Consent Order for “deficiencies” in its foreclosure procedures, but imo that didn’t stop them. They’ve now sold their
    servicing portfolio to NationStar. There’s probably enough dirt there
    to fill that monster new sink hole in the midwest, was it.

  32. JG, I wrote:

    “And the judge says, “Mam! Did you, or did you not, take out the loan?”

    Motion granted!

    Next!”

    And JG wrote:

    You’re so right. But. Unless it’s an evidentiary hearing or trial and one is on the witness stand, the court has no business asking such a question. I’m saying this because although you may have meant it figuratively, I’ll bet it actually, literally happens and I would find a way not to answer without p.o.’ing the judge (so I don’t have to later appeal his prejudicial, ego-driven response to my not answering)

    JG, I saw the following first hand. I accompanied a pro se friend to her MTD hearing just for moral support. I sat in the peanut gallery. Adversary attorney started in with all the usual stuff….I couldn’t believe what I witnessed. I wrote about this a couple of years ago, and was flamed by someone who said it would never happen and that I was lying, but let me tell the non-believers out there what really goes on in court with a 100% bank biased judge.

    True story, I was there.

    Pro se plaintiff was told to wait, not allowed to present her case first. Bank attorney starts with the usual:

    Adversary Attorney: Your honor, the debtor took out a loan…..

    Pro Se: I object your honor. This attorney has no actual knowledge…

    Judge: Quiet! Continue AA….

    AA: As I was saying your honor, Ms. So&So took out a loan, defaulted…

    PS: I object your honor. I deny ever taking a loan with this….

    Judge: For the last time, KEEP QUIET! YOU’LL HAVE YOUR CHANCE TO SPEAK WHEN I SAY SO!

    AA: Your honor, this is simply another one of those “show me the note cases”, that have been proven defective over and over again…..

    PS: I object your honor. I….

    Judge: One more word from you young lady, and I’ll find you in contempt of court.

    PS: But your honor, it is my belief that if I don’t object, I’ll lose….

    Judge: SILENCE! Continue counselor.

    As can be expected from this charade, MTD was granted.

    That is how it goes in courts across the land. Don’t anyone give me this shit about the law simply needing to build up over the bodies of mortgagors, slowly building case law, or about what inning we’re in. And don’t expect any cries of jubilation from me over a ruling like Glaski in CA. Woopdie-fucking-doo. A court finally rules for established law. Once. After watching them lie and steal in concert with 100% fraud for six years now. Only one judge in this entire nation, the Honorable Judge Shack in NY, gets it. Boyko did, but if memory serves, he was overturned. The rest are front-running this entire crime spree.

    This is a blatant and concerted effort to aid and abet the banks in their takeover of property across the land. Only when these judges and politicians fear the citizenry and the backlash from all of us taking it to the streets will they suddenly get religion. Until then, we will continue to be oppressed and deprived of justice. It’s way past time for tar and feathers.

  33. Your stolen identity is the Bond

  34. The Mortgage is Not the Bond

  35. @john gault

    where did you get the notion that AIG insured the banksters?

  36. The latest round of lawsuits and investigations center in on allegations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission ….

    Agency litigation is nothing more than “wheres our cut”

    …investigations center in on allegations the sale of mortgage bonds was fraudulent.

    [MS] Sale of mortgage bonds. Sale of mortgage bonds….what does that mean . Bobby bonds James Bond mortgage Bond …what is a mortgage bond …..Bondo Bonding Bond-able bondage , bond-duplicative-bonderama …I mead What the Fed is a mortgage bond NG I got to know – tell me who goofed?

    We agree, and for more reasons than those reported to be in those lawsuits. Under Federal and State law identity theft occurs when the information is obtained for use in a fraudulent scheme, just as alleged by the department of justice.

    ID Theft…I signed the loan documents and took the money so now peter is robbing Paul and WaMU and IMB are gone thanks to BofA and Wells Fargo and CWHL Inc is gone thanks to Wachovia FSB and Lehman Browsers and …here we go again …ID Theft is all it takes to get a home or your mattress is for freeeeee

    So, you say “that the sale of mortgage bonds was fraudulent”. We agree, and for more reasons than those reported to be in those lawsuits.

    What the Fructose is a mortgage Bond ….Bondo, Boloney, BonDonovan, Bon Scott ….(Quiz who is Bon Scott)

    Mortgage Bonds…someone help me ….

    Under Federal and State law identity theft occurs when the information is obtained for use in a fraudulent scheme, just as alleged by the department of justice.

  37. Can I really be the only one here this is torking royally?
    AIG insured the banksters, not the trust investors who it’s now claimed by the banksters own the loans. The govt stepped in when the S hit the fan and bailed out AIG and demanded that AIG pay the banksters at 100%.
    The banksters then claim the trusts own the loans and there is a
    second payment on the same debt (foreclosure). And WE got to make all this possible by the use of OUR (freshly printed) money to bail out AIG, which was really bailing out the banksters?

  38. @deadly clear – as I recall, that’s also true with foreclosures. Many yeahoos involved in foreclosures get the ‘key code’ for servicers’ records, getting unlimited access to not just the borrower-at-issue’s
    info (ss #, you name it), but anyone’s in that system.

  39. NG – I have an idea – how about naming AIG or a GSE in suits or counter-suits?
    AIG may have paid out and a GSE may have honored its guarantee. If a loan went thru FNMA for instance, a trust should never be the claimant.
    Why ask someone else if AIG (for instance) paid out? Why not name
    AIG as a defendant? How do we know if AIG paid out, it has no rights under the note and dot? We don’t.

  40. Ok, on a lighter note, some folks have asked me how they can tell if they should get a new lawyer. Here’s the 15 ways you can tell it’s time to get rid of the guy:

    1.   Your lawyer wears an electronic ankle bracelet.

    2.   He needs his GPS device to find the local court house.

    3.   The only bar exam he ever passed required a $10 cover charge.

    4.   He buys litigation backers one at a time.

    5.   He thinks that legal briefs are a form of underwear only worn by judges and lawyers.

    6.   He listed himself as the primary beneficiary of your living trust. (And he holds your health care proxy in his name.)

    7.   He rents his office space by the week.

    8.   He prepares you for settlement negotiations by asking you if you brought your K-Y Jelly.

    9.   He sometimes resides in county facilities after work hours, and his cell phone there can’t make outgoing calls.

    10. He prepares you for your deposition by asking you who’s going to be doing the talking.

    11.   He thinks that cross examinations are something that priests do before mass.

    12.   He plea bargains your traffic ticket into a felony conviction.

    13.   He thinks a Subpoena is some sort of an Italian hoagie.

    14.   When he receives a Discovery notice, he turns on the Discovery Channel to see what’s playing.

    15.   He thinks the Statute of Limitations is a major tourist attraction in New York Harbor.

  41. carie – maybe they’re civil and human rights, but in court they’re first, I guess I’d say, contractual, procedural, and evidentiary issues. Courts must be “encouraged” to look at these disputes for what they are: contractual disputes. A claim is being made that one signed a contract and has renigged. Yeah, okay, that’s what they;re saying. But that is so not the end of the story. I have tried to show that poss of a bearer note means next to nothing, if not nothing, at least in fed juris, where the bar for jurisdiction is injury. Without having paid for that note, the claimant cannot suffer injury by its non-payment (so its poss is of no value in regard to a claim). Courts generally don’t have jurisdiction to hear claims (injuries) of X made by Y. If Y is the party who will suffer from non-payment, Y must bring the claim or be joined by X. Period.
    I do have support, but can’t get to it just now. Even when a “Y” assigns
    its claim/injury to X, if Y remains the party who will benefit by the relief granted by the court, X may not argue Y’s injury in its own right. Courts looking only to bearer provisions of the UCC and even looking at the infamous “MERS” assgt of the collateral instrument are still overlooking the true jurisdictional bar, which is one’s own injury. The UCC is not the bomb; it’s not the only factor bearing on these cases – in fact, it’s subordinate to the injury requirements if not other tenets I can’t bring to mind this minute.
    last year, think its was, an attorney we know who fights hard for homeowners allowed a court to find juris based on poss of a bearer note. First of all (and even say the note were endorsed to the bankster specifically) , that state was a security first state, which to me meant there was no juris based solely on the note just for that reason.
    Since the bankster must look to the security first and can’t get a personal judgment against the borrower, there was no juris to hear
    a complaint based on the note only. There wasn’t even argument that the collateral instrument followed the note (bah, say I) And so it goes time after time……

  42. “These are civil and human rights issues that are being completely ignored. Irrelevant in foreclosure defense. That’s what class actions are for.

  43. @JG—that is indeed all the judges care about; “Well…is that your signature?”

    People just want them to acknowledge their right to deal with the real creditor…but the judges don’t care about a “real creditor”…by law they have to care—but they don’t. They know that what they are dealing with is some hidden entity who (somehow) has (maybe) “collection rights” only—to “something”—the money trail and real justice doesn’t matter to them. The fact that it is unsecured debt just doesn’t matter to them…they don’t care…that’s the bottom line.
    These are civil and human rights issues that are being completely ignored.

  44. E. ToLLe, on August 8, 2013 at 1:02 pm said:
    “And the judge says, “Mam! Did you, or did you not, take out the loan?”
    Motion granted!
    Next!”

    You’re so right. But. Unless it’s an evidentiary hearing or trial and one is on the witness stand, the court has no business asking such a question. I’m saying this because although you may have meant it figuratively, I’ll bet it actually, literally happens and I owuld find a way not to answer without p.o.’ing the judge (so I don’t have to later appeal his prejudicial, ego-driven response to my not answering)

  45. elex – I read most of the case. California law is held to prohibit a deficiency after ANY sale of the property. Bankster argued the statute means foreclosure sale. The appeal court disagreed and relied on the plain language of the statute at issue. CA, which I didn’t know or forgot, prohibits a deficiency period (way I got it in my quick read) on a purchase money loan. CA people with refi’s at issue re:; deficiencies might benefit from reading this case, also since it touches on def judgments after sale when the loan was a refi.
    I still say a “lender” who opted for non-j foreclosure has no right to issue a 1099 because by its election to foreclose non-judicially, it has waived collection of any deficiency (and we don’t get write-offs by the IRS’ rules unless we attempt to collect and can’t). The borrower will in face get debt forgiveness by way of non-j foreclosure, but to me that’s not the issue. The issue is: is the lender entitled to the corresponding write-off of the 1099 amt and I say no: they waived the deficiency by non-j, chose not to try to collect (see what happens if we try to write off a bad debt when we made no attempt to collect) and so tough.

  46. Absolutely

  47. elex – thanks for that case and I’ll read it to find the court’s particular reasoning. But I don’t think I need to read it to know that a bankster who accepts a short sale can’t get a deficiency.judgment for the same debt. A bankster who accepts a short sale has made its election of remedies (for the alleged default) and that’s all it gets – one election, not two. If lenders want deficiencies (in states which allow them and if the contract itself doesn’t prohibit a deficiency), they have to seek the deficiency in the same action wherein they seek to move against the collateral (judicial foreclosure). Whether or not a short sale is “an action” within the meaning of the one-action rule is probably debateable and that’s why I’ll be sure to read that case. But even notwithstanding the fact a short sale may not be “an action” within the one-action rule, it’s still an election of remedies which should prohibit a second, a deficiency judgment. imo.

  48. Nobody gets along, nobody agrees with anybody else and everybody is suing everyone else. In the end, nothing gets done, everyone is pissed and people constantly snarl at each other. Is that what civilization is all about? Can it get any more dysfunctional? Is this what we’re aiming for, our big ambition as a country: to get to the bottom of what absolute dysfunction might feel like? Has this country’s hidden mission become to be the example of what never, ever do ever again? Are kids going to be told in the future: “Stop acting up! Stop it right now! Otherwise, i’ll send you to the Americans!”

    One more thing… all those financial entities have way too much money, judging by how much of it they keeping wasting in court, at the expense of restoring stability to this country’s economy. Parasites!

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/bondholders-sue-california-city-to-block-mortgage-seizures-1-.html

    Pimco, BlackRock Seek to Bar California Mortgage Seizures
    By Jody Shenn, Karen Gullo & John Gittelsohn – Aug 8, 2013 2:27 PM

    Pacific Investment Management Co., BlackRock Inc. (BLK) and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. are seeking a court order blocking Richmond, California, and Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC from seizing mortgages through eminent domain, saying the initiative would hurt savers and retirees.

    The city’s plan is unconstitutional, according to complaints filed yesterday by mortgage-bond trustees in federal court in San Francisco. The trustees, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and Deutsche Bank AG, were directed to take the action by investors in the debt that also include Jeffrey Gundlach’s DoubleLine Capital LP, said John Ertman, a partner at Ropes & Gray LLP. Bank of New York said in a separate complaint the beneficiaries of trusts it oversees include pension funds and mutual funds.

  49. C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator.YOUR-4DACD0EA75\Desktop\Unjust Enrichment\Plaintiff’s Reply Memo to Defendant’s Opposition to Amended Complaint.mht

    Neil Garfield posted: “The purpose of this article is to support the prior conclusions expressed in my articles and appearances that in addition to being a Ponzi scheme, a necessary component of the illusion of a securitization plan was identity theft in which the identity of a”

  50. HSBC, B of A, DB, JPM… are we looking at something real or is still just smoke and mirrors? The world isn’t too happy with the US having dragged its feet for too long and nobody seems to be holding his breath outside of this country. I guess i won’t hold mine either… How far can 200 investigators/prosecutors go and how fast?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-09/obame-fradu-task-force-takes-on-the-big-banks.html

    Obama Fraud Task Force Takes on the Big Banks
    By Greg Farrell, Phil Mattingly & Karen Gullo – Aug 9, 2013 12:00 AM ET

    The criminal investigation of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s mortgage-backed securities practice is evidence a U.S. Justice Department task force set up to investigate causes of the financial crisis is finally getting some traction against banks blamed for ruining the economy.

    The probe, disclosed this week in the bank’s quarterly filing, is the latest enforcement effort to emerge from the Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Working Group. It was set up last year on orders of President Barack Obama to coordinate prosecutions of fraudulent underwriting activity by banks that contributed to the financial crisis.

    The JPMorgan probe, which is also looking at possible [sic] civil violations, grew out of the working group’s efforts, said Lauren Horwood, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner in Sacramento, who is leading the investigation and is a member of the group’s parent, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force…

    …Broad Mandate

    The group has a broad mandate to investigate “any harm suffered by American consumers” related to misrepresentations or failures in agreements related to the securities, according to a Jan. 27, 2012, memo by Attorney General Eric Holder.

  51. ok, Debra…forget it. Sorry that I even tried to help.

    Good luck…you’re on your own.

  52. Ive tried not to get irtitated by you bob whoever
    Bar licence number please
    Your a fake

  53. Debra…if you don’t respond to the questions I asked you, I can’t help you.

    I’m starting to think that English my be a second (or third) language on this blog.

  54. Read my case bob
    9 th circuit usca 12-16192
    I originally asked fdic questions regarding the disposition of the assets sold to one west for example and the ststus of my loan and fir dates when and if in a remic trust whether it was subject to any ” deals” whether it was charged off and so on – read neils post the other re one west ( he is far more succinct than and im off to work)i and the sweetheArt deal with fdic) so
    Fdic said some things in a letter re the owner of my loan- they know this but they cant tell me the other things about the assets sold to one west being my subject “loan” issued in my name i am trustor- was trustor. Actually truth is still am trustor. I effectivly shifted the burden of proof which i hope will lead to the fabulously creatuve accounting for the ” life of the loan”
    You can file for judicial review and sue under foia – 6 years sol
    And bob i see your frustration but we are all different with unique cases which all took a long and winding road. Honestly as a pro se er at least i can trust mysrlf, and im not quitting its my long and winding road that only i can tread.

  55. @ Debra Wynn

    Two things:

    First, if the 1099 was issued to you in a mortgage foreclosure action, how much $$$ was the 1099 for ?

    Second, please explain your SOL argument. Not sure that I fully understand your point.

  56. and hence I told the IRS I can not file my Tax return (foreclosure was 4/21/2010- on same day 1099a was issued against my name) because I have a 1099a which is in controversy as to whether the “lender” is the lender and that the foreclosure they issued it under was legal and whether the “lender” had a legal right to issue it to me because I am still in court- the IRS will not talk to me.
    brick wall getting info under FOIA (by the way SOL is 6 years under FOIA) case number USCA 12-16192.

  57. I hate to rain on the parade, but these statutes will never be applied against the banks. First, you’d have to find a prosecutor willing to prosecute. Second, criminal statutes rarely provide private rights of action. Third, torts derived from criminal actions are rather rare. Fourth, criminal convictions require a much higher standard of proof, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt, which some authorities construe to mean 85% certainty, rather than the preponderance of evidence (51%) applicable in civil matters.

    So litigants can’t seem to win at the 51% standard, but now they are going to win at the 85% standard?

    Get real, folks. The stuff presented in this article is never going to work. Much better to stick with stuff like Glaski, where the floodgates may be opening.

  58. @Neil Garfield:

    Outstanding article. It applies to every foreclosure, which has happened here since 1999.
    Several other statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. 1342, are available which could be used in this regard and mentioned in this FBI flyer:

    http://fcmkc.com/wwp/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DISCLOSURES-MORTGAGE-FRAUD-IS-INVESTIGATED-BY-THE-FBI.pdf

  59. The beginning of the end, cont.

    This was yesterday’s news:

    “Hello HSBC, This Is JPMorgan – We Urgently Need Some Of Your Gold”
    Wednesday, August 7, 2013 18:23

    What happens when 63.5K ounces of registered gold in your warehouse (16% of total) just has their warrants detached and the vault is about to finds itself 63.5k ounces of gold emptier? If you are JPM you call the gold vault with most inventory in town, that of HSBC, and politely request that they transfer as much eligible gold as they can on short notice – in this case a tiny 6,444.936 oz to be exact.

    None of which changes the fact that in a few days, the inventory in JPM’s gold vault will drop to another record low of only 380K ounces and the JPM “rescue” pleas from HSBC and other Comex members will become ever louder and more desperate until one day they may just go straight to voicemail.

    Today, it’s this (compliments of Zerohedge):

    “Hello Scotia Mocatta, This Is JPMorgan – We Urgently Need Some Of Your Gold”
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/08/2013 – 16:27

    Yesterday, it was HSBC. Today, the lucky respondent to JPM’s polite gold ‘procurement’ request, is the second “fullest” New York commercial gold vault: Scotia Mocatta.

  60. Because the local land recorder does not require even a copy of the Note on file you got the making of fraud from the start. I am not understand why when counties are give a copy of the Note and it show that the document is a blank endorsement that proof of a sale is not required.

    This I hope will not end good for the creators of the securities who are in possession of blank Notes with a sale occurring. I am trying to figure how much longer the SEC can go on with knowing that a Ginnie Mae does not purchase the loans/Notes but are ordering the foreclosure of the properties and selling it to the Federal Government in the FHA and VA without clean titles!

    How does a MERS get away with skipping over WaMu to claim that Wells Fargo or Chase is now the owner of the debt without any proof of purchase! Is that county are now caught in the fraud because they allowed this non proof assignments to take place?

  61. Still no end to the insanity…

    How Citi is hedging against the foreclosure settlements
    By Eleanor Bloxham, CEO of The Value Alliance August 5, 2013: 11:28 AM ET

    FORTUNE — Are you missing a $125,000 check?

    Four hundred thousand checks mailed out as part of the government’s foreclosure settlement with 13 banks have been returned to Rust Consulting, the firm that mailed them. Bryan Hubbard, an OCC spokesperson, says efforts are underway to track down better addresses for the recipients of these checks, some of which are worth up to $125,000.

    Who’s paying Rust to do this work? The 13 banks that agreed to the government settlement pay Rust, Hubbard told me. These banks include Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), J.P. Morgan (JPM), Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), and Wells Fargo (WFC), among others. Rust would not provide information for this article on how the contracts with the banks were negotiated or information on the terms of those contracts.

    MORE: The myth of America’s missing software engineers

    Rust’s parent company is SourceHOV. Up until March, Apollo Global Management owned SourceHOV. Now, Citigroup, one of the 13 banks involved in the settlement, has that privilege. Citi Venture Capital International Private Equity (CVCI) “has an established track record of successful investments in the business services/outsourcing space; Source HOV fit nicely into our parameters,” Citi spokesperson Danielle Romero-Apsilos wrote me in an email.

    Read the rest here.

    http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/citigroup-foreclosure-settlements/

  62. UKG,

    It’s pretty sad to say that but it feels like a bitter sweet victory. Class actions are notorious for making trends but also for enriching the attorneys who launch them. The real victims hardly ever get compensated for what they lost. How many people received a lousy $24.97 for something that had been going on for decades and cost them upward of $1000? The last check i got on a C.A. I never even knew I was part of was AmEx. $3.84. With all kinds of stipulations on the back of the check, including my renouncing any claim i might have had against them.

    Got one for AIG retirement fund a couple of years ago. I lost $40,000 in the 2007 debacle. Got back a brand new $281 set up as an annuity I could roll over into my IRA (you’re kidding, right? You were my 401K, for Pete’s sake!) or cash, with a tax penalty attached to it.

    Garfield said a while back that it would have to be fought as class actions to make a dent. Make what kind of a dent? In favor of whom?

    Class actions may help straighten out the regulations and enforce them. They won’t help the people who really suffered.

  63. No? How so?

  64. no

  65. Funny,

    I was actually looking at that when I read your previous post: is there a difference between “appeals court” and “appelate court”.

    If anyone is unconscious (or taxpayer-money loaded enough) to appeal that decision… I guess it would have to be the US Supreme court, wouldn’t it? Glaski is binding as far as i can see.

  66. One either thing re Glaski…
    In NY there is the trial court level – Supreme Court
    Then the midlevel Appellate Division
    Then the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state.

    In the NY Appellate Division, there are four geographic departments. Nevertheless, there is only ONE Appellate Division. So let’s say that the 1st Dept. rules on an issue, and no other department has yet to rule and decide the same issue. Then all the other trial courts in NY, regardless of their dept., are then bound by the 1st Dept.’s ruling.

    If things work the same way in CA, then Glaski will become binding on all the trial courts until another appellate court or the CA Supreme Court rules to the contrary.

  67. The Glaski decision…now that this decision is going to be published, the bank may now try and appeal this to the CA Supreme Court, if the decision is ripe for appeal.

  68. “There are many ways in which the damages to the homeowner can be recouped. this article suggests that one of them is through allegations of identity theft.”

    I don’t want to rain on anybody’s parade but… that infamous $25 billion settlement was based on a highly publicized and pretty damning complaint which already spelled a lot of criminal activities (even though the complaint itself was filed as a civil action). One would think that many of the allegations would have been used in subsequent individual homeowners’ filings: it really was damning as hell after all!

    One would even have expected judges to look closer at foreclosures from that point on. Didn’t happen.

    I applaud wishful thinking any day if it makes people feel much better. Those are interesting theories once again but given how many people grabbed “interesting theories” and presented them as facts to fall flat on their faces, I would, as usual, seriously caution anyone from going there. Don’t try this at home unattended…

  69. Long Live Neil Garfield and Company. He is a true “Mench”. A modern day David vs Goliath.

    stopforeclosurefraud.com/2013/08/08/published-glaski-v-bank-of-america-ca5-5th-appellate-district-securitization-failed-ny-trust-law-applied-quiet-title-and-a-host-of-other-causes-reversed-a/

    The reason I write this is with all of Mr Fong’s talent if they did not have the people of California behind him this would never happen. Neil Garfield and who ever contributed and contributes to this blog is a major contributor in educating the People. We the People.

    NEVER AGAIN

  70. Glaski v. BOA 5th District COA Decision ordered published today.
    Noncompliance with PSA renders transfer to securitized trust void.

  71. Starting with the 1003 application there was a violation of privacy established by the use of the patented software program that every lender used which flowed the consumer information into a seamless automation and into a data storage bank that was accessible to all.

    See: http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/behind-the-securitization-curtain-21st-century-mortgage-casino/

  72. And the judge says, “Mam! Did you, or did you not, take out the loan?”

    Motion granted!

    Next!

  73. Don’t know if it would hold in CA. Recent Appellate decision presented this little gem “Section 58(b) places the risk of inadequate security on the purchase money mortgagee. A vendor is thus discouraged from overvaluing the security. ” In other words, the obligation cannot be pursued in DOT loans, so the identity of the obligor is irrelevant. Only the value of the secured property may be sought by foreclosing lender. See
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Coker-v-JPMorgan.pdf

    Case of bankster declaring default and electing n-j foreclosure, then agreed to short sale (likely to one of their strawmen buyers) and was prevented from going after deficiency.

  74. Funny post! Without identity theft , the modern fractional reserve banking system can’t exist.

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 3,120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: