JPMorgan hit by U.S. bribery probe into Chinese hiring

How did the banks get away with it? Bribery takes many forms. It doesn’t need to be a direct payment, but merely something of value to the regulator or law enforcement officer. In this case it is the hiring of children of banking regulators in China. There is no reason why we should think that couldn’t happen here. It did. The revolving door of regulators, law enforcement and the banks has long been known.

Even if it isn’t a bribe, the bank is hiring people and then designating them for important positions in government regulation. Jamie Dimon sits on the Board at the New York Federal Reserve. Being immersed in the bank culture, the people involved come to believe the myths repeated every day. It becomes part of their culture.

The reason why the decisions on banking have been so chaotic is that there is a direct conflict between the real world and the illusions created by the banks. Put another way, the difference is between truth and fiction.

The fact remains that practically no mortgage can be satisfied or released because the ownership is completely deranged. The correction can only come from the courts when they realize and learn that the origination of the loan was a sham transaction, not just a table funded loan, and that the intent was fraud on the investors and homeowners (who were also “investors”). The scheme unraveled precisely in concert with investors ceasing to buy the “mortgage bonds” issued by entities in “street name.” That is the red flag that alerts authorities that the securitization chain was in fact a fraudulent PONZI scheme. The issuers were designated asset pools that had nothing in them, and in most cases were not funded, directly or indirectly. So the mortgage bonds were worthless.

And now that the facts are being slowly revealed, the depth of malfeasance by the banks is being recognized for what it is — but the government is sticking with its policy of “no prosecution.” Until the government steps up to the mike and says outright that the scheme was a fraudulent scheme in which the borrowers were used as pawn to steal money from investors, most people are not going to believe it. Until respectable economists and legal scholars step up and say that the loan transaction described in the note never existed and was a strawman transaction that should have been revealed to the borrower, this tragedy will stop.

Study the Assignment and Assumption Agreements executed before the first loan application was ever accepted for review. Track the money from strangers showing up at closing as though it was the money of the designated payee on the note and mortgage. The rest will be easy. But until regulators see the public as their boss instead of the banks, don’t expect any help from outside the courtroom.

JPMorgan hit by U.S. bribery probe into Chinese hiring

66 Responses

  1. Here are a few that are speaking out…
    Scholars & Economists:
    PhD (Nobel winner) Stiglitz
    PhD. Paul Craig Roberts (Fmr. Asst. Sec. Treasury)
    Catherine Austin Fitts (Fmr. Asst. Sec. Housing)
    Prof. William K. Black (Fmr Regulator)
    Prof. Jeffrey Sachs
    James Rickards (lawyer, economist, and investment banker)
    and more…
    This is not a landslide from so called experts, however the fact is the corporate controlled media, corporate controlled governments, and the central planners have ignored the calls from the people and the field experts; while the criminal activities continue to play out to a conclusion that is approaching faster (perhaps year 2013 or 2014?) and Awareness grows among all the people of Earth as this is a global crisis beyond all borders.

    The institutions will ignore this as long as they can, but be aware even though the events and discussions are not reported in the MAJOR NETWORKS and Regulatory institutions the numbers of dissent is growing.
    http://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/prof-jeffrey-sachs-presentation-on-april-17-2013/

  2. JG Never ever let anyone Bully you , intimidate you or cause you anguish . She is a lawsuit waiting to happen and will look the fool for her ignorance on the subject matter . This is a wake up call as this hormone cannot profess anything about improving your attack in court but defamtion for government and hatered for everthing under the sun . READ what I post and challange it – I have no problems with that . But “it ” cannot – I write about what I know . If I could tell you what I got to date on this imposter …already ….you would be outraged at who is attacking you . I have class ..but …I wont for now.

  3. DEAL STRUCTURE AMONG PARTIES

    1) The originator is a tax payer entity that was formed as a REIT and transfers the REIT status to its LLC after the first year. The Bank is an FDIC member NA that originates a single pooled asset for delivery into a depositors account. There is no separation of loans in the transfer while the lender retains what originated as flow receivables having separate accounts.

  4. JG to MS,

    “I should and could just ignore you, but you’re really getting on my nerves. You say what seems irrelevant if not idiotic one minute and then lay some tantalizing tidbit on us the next. I wish to h you’d knock it off.”

    JG:

    Did it occur to you that Maher Soliman is just a manipulator and you keep falling for it? “You’re really getting on my nerves.” That’s a hell of a power to give one individual. What you’re saying is that he has the ability to get your BP up, he can impact on your emotions and he disturbs your peace of mind. For Pete’s sake! Get your power back and do your own research on whom you’re dealing with. I keep posting ample evidence of what that immature, borderline, sue-happy loser is about and you keep giving him a platform.

    Maher Soliman is a big nothing. You seem to be the only one here who doesn’t know it. Move on, please. MS is nobody in foreclosure defense. What he is is a peddler trying to make a name for himself. Come on! Use your common sense!

    Or… keep being manipulated. Free will.

  5. MS – you think you’re one of the big boys in the sand box, or even in the sand box, because you purport to see the global implication of acknowledgement of the f a c t s and the rest of us here, mere plebes and mortals, don’t and only care about little things like contracts, law, the constitution? You might want to rethink that one.

  6. Not this time, MS. You tell me what YOU”re talking about first.

  7. i’ve been saying for quite a while now that if the trusts paid for notes but didn’t get them, they have security interests in the notes and the banksters are indentured parties primarily obligated to the trusts.
    That would explain why the banksters continue making payments when the borrower is not paying (it’s one reason).

    The banksters must, must allege to use the credit bid of the trusts (whether even if all were done which was to be done that’s an appropriate thing for these trusts to do – depends on just what happens to a note which has been securitized, it all does depend on this). A lender has a right to a credit bid. If the banksters don’t allege to be using the credit bid of the trusts, they are outing maybe a lot of things, but certainly that the loans weren’t transferred to the trusts, and of course, they can’t have that. And btw, equity will consider done that which was to be done, but that is not a doctrine recognized by
    NY trust law. A thing is done or it ain’t.

    But I’m wondering. The UCC does provide that one who pays for a note but doesn’t get it has security interests in both the note and its
    collateral – generally (and those security interests are going to be senior to any other claims as to the note – think AIG, for instance).
    is it possible that these particular trusts may not have secured interests in notes? The answer looks like ‘yes’, because these are to be true sales under the trust laws, not the creation of security interests. So then, the trusts have nothing and the investors as individuals would be the ones with the security interests? Or not? Maybe in equity, but not as a ‘trust’, only individually. Neil had, I think, mentioned the law creating a common-law trust when there is non-delivery (my memory comes and goes – dang it) to these trusts. Maybe you’ll address that again , Neil, or point us to your post..

    But whatever the conclusion, the trusts don’t in fact have security interests, because that doesn’t constitute a true sale, right? Who cares? We do.

    For one thing, if the trusts can’t lay claim to security interests, they have no recourse against the note maker at all, except as individuals, maybe. They got s’d. b’d, and tattoo’d, unless they, the investors themselves, say collectively and not as trust -‘members’, make claims against the banksters for non-delivery. In the absence of security interests, their recourse is against the party who did not deliver. They could be adjudicated, then and only then, to have rights of subrogation against the note makers.

    Of course if MS’s tidbit means the notes are toast, the whole thing is
    the mess to which he alludes, the acknowledgement of which is something which could allegedly turn the country on its head again, instead of just maiming thousands if not millions of us. We are to bear this insanity for some alleged greater good? I’d rather not, and anyway, it isn’t a greater good. There is no greater good than upholding the constitution and laws of our country. And, the people who could don’t seem to have considered viable alternatives, not really. If legislators and judges make decisions which fly in the face of the law and our constitution, obviously they aren’t living up to their oaths, and despite what some of them may think, they aren’t really doing this country any favors, either. Just like we are what we eat, we are what we do.

  8. A trust which has paid for a note and not gotten it
    WRONG

    will in fact suffer injury by its non- payment.
    NEVER WRONG

    But their (both the investors and the banksters) problem is it’s WHOM has created the injury and owesrestitution to the investors: the banksters,
    WTF ….

    with the borrower being only secondarily liable to the investors (and only after claims against those primarily liable). …

    YOUR SAYING WHAT Surety and liability in subrogation – salvage rights ….you mean capitation by agency ..

    What are you talking about ?

    REGISTERCLAIMS@LIVE.COM

  9. The note is dead. The note was traded for an isolated and remote annuity. Well, that’s just swell then (said Liutentant Dan). We’ll just tell the judges that.

    read 2200 pages of Willeys GAAP , read DeloitteConcerns with codified FAS 140 read the implications of ASC 310 320, & 810 820 imbedded derivitives FASB Codification. Transfers. FAS 140/FAS 166***. FAS 156. ASC 860, ***Not yet codified. ASC 860-50-35 and 860-50-50-5. Consolidations. FIN 46R/FAS …The FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“Codification”) was launched on July 1, …. FAS 140/FAS 166 ASC 860, Transfers and Servicing. FAS 160 and FIN.

    Its a hand full JG , Your not equipped to tackle the subejct matter and ignorace causes the consternation with what this expert and only a few really understand . You see I’ m here to help while trying to fix the big picture globally . They listen – you wont

  10. For those of you sending messages and support , Thanks – but not necessary. Its true though that these small minds are not the problem .

    The Justice Department was caught spying on journalists from the Associated Press, and went so far as to label a Fox News journalist a “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation. Right now, the DoJ is trying to force a New York Times reporter to reveal the source of another leak — and threatening him with jail time if he doesn’t comply.

    On the other topic of servicing
    You cannot service assets placed in these types of closed end investments under GAAP where assets are isolated and remote.See SEC 1122 AB Reg

    registerclaims@live.com

  11. Ms – there you go again. dammit.
    “There is nothing fraudulant going on with the way they booked assets . Isolated and remote means no one is going to get close to any asset held in a closed end annutiy trust fund .”

    so now you’re calling the trust a closed end annuity trust fund or are we to guess some more? Bottom line of what you said seems to be
    that the trust investors bought an annuity with a finite life time of X (which has no real relationship to the terms of the note). You also impliy but won’t say the note itself is not enforceable, might even be toast, or because it’s toast. The note is dead. The note was traded for an isolated and remote annuity. Well, that’s just swell then (said Liutentant Dan). We’ll just tell the judges that.

  12. Bailment is marked by the bland endorsement and blank assignement . Its the basis for de-recognition .

    When hired to testify – and the attorney is called by the US DOJ and Client is called by the DOT and I am interviewed by the US prosecutor…why if the information i have is worthless.

    I say little as possible …and do Keep your money really . Thats NG s deal. But I say to each of you ….this is a new dawn and new age and woe to the person who is offering anti government sentiment , petutlance and repeated attack aginst the Obama administration.

    There is nothing fraudulant going on with the way they booked assets . Isolated and remote means no one is going to get close to any asset held in a closed end annutiy trust fund .

    Not even the lender or its successors . So what are they foreclosing on

  13. Sorry, MS, maybe the note is supposed to be in the hands of the ‘payee’, loosely, prior to funds being released, but in reality, it doesn’t happen, not on a purchase, for sure (where docs are signed and funds change hands pretty much concurrently, unlike a refi with a three day right of rescission).

    John G – I was the party funding the purchase . The BS aside I am not wiring cash until priority bancorp, GMAC First Collateral whomever i used to originate has possession of the note

  14. louise, on August 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm said:
    JG, that’s how NG BS works, just enough to wet the appetite and pay him some money, because Neil is not going to follow through. There are several who have found out about viagra ….the hard way.

    MS works …No BS …Ok

    The mortgage is dialed into a formula. Its on your statements . Its compelling enough to win $165,000 last month . What is it my friends …. . You want me to tell you …I know you do ….why …what would you do with the info my good friend louise ….et al. You like good info . Yes ….what are the numbers and what do they mean ….

  15. JG, that’s how MS’ BS works, just enough to wet the appetite and pay him some money, because he is not going to follow through. There are several who have found this out the hard way.

  16. ms – I should and could just ignore you, but you’re really getting on my nerves. You say what seems irrelevant if not idiotic one minute and then lay some tantalizing tidbit on us the next. I wish to h you’d knock it off. How about if you actually say something or get your own stinking web-site where you can charge admission, since money seems your goal. Not knocking that, but I am knocking your apparent refusal to actually say something here while doing everything you can to get our attention on YOU. You may in fact know at least SOMEthing beneficial to us, but you refuse to or are incapable of spitting it out, and it’s more distracting than anything else, and that;s what’s really irking me. I don’t own this site, but I wish you’d say something the h or bugger off.

  17. “A trust as described in sections 9-1.5, 9-1.6 and 9-1.7 of the estates, powers and trusts law, including a business trust as defined in subdivision two of section two of the general associations law,

    may acquire property in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust.”
    Notes endorsed in blank
    can not
    be lawfully the asset of the private MBS Trust established under New York trust law. Consequently the alleged servicer of the Trust has no entitlement to enforce the Note.”

    Why then, I wonder, did some PSA’s willfully call for the violation of NY trust law, or at any rate, a circumstance which would vitiate a transfer of the notes to the trust, by approving notes endorsed in blank?
    If the notes had been physically transferred to the trusts, would such a note endorsed in blank have created a bailment? And if so, is a bailment sufficient to create a pre-cut-off date interest by the trust?
    I’m thinking not.

    MS may be calling any note endorsed in blank of which the trust has possession a bailment, which has some possibility imo and has actually already occured to me. fwiw. But significantly, bailment, to my knowledge, requires possession.
    Generally a bailee may enforce a note pursuant to the UCC, just not these trusts, who are limited by cut-off dates to their (future) cans and can’ts. A bailment is not ownership. It’s something else. A warehouse lender is a bailee, but a WL also has a contractual right to enforce a ntote against its maker for non-payment by the warehosue lender’s
    own borrower (bankster) and is not constricted by trust law.

    Why would banksters craft PSA’s which called for specially endorsed notes yet which also allowed endorsements in blank, when endorsements in blank, when a note in blank is not “acquired” by a trust? I suppose we could think of lots of reasons, many already
    disected here at LL. One which leaps to mind is the banksters retaining insurable interests, and/ but then when the MERS Consent Order hit and somebody had to be named as a claimant, reliance could be on bailment (the ever-handy blank endorsement), right or wrong. But as to the retention of insurable interests, there are likely
    more relevant reasons the banksters wrote the PSA’s as they did.

    A trust which has paid for a note and not gotten it will in fact suffer injury by its non- payment. But their (both the investors and the banksters) problem is it’s WHOM has created the injury and owes
    restitution to the investors: the banksters, with the borrower being only secondarily liable to the investors (and only after cliams against those primarily liable). Whether or not a bailment or a sale
    took place may have to be found in the intent of the parties, but obviously, neither apply if there were no delivery of notes. If investors paid for notes as a sale and didn’t get the notes, what they have is security interests against indentured parties, those who took their money. And if trust law just plain rules out bailment vrs “acquisition”, well, there goes that.

    I dont’ know if it’s a good use of time to spend any of it on these issues, since the banksters all appear to be wiliing to convert blank endorsements to special ones to the trusts (or they would if needed)
    with their overnight orders for rubber stamps and forged signatures.
    One of the cases here, or one of the readers here, had a case where the endorsements for B of A and WF (just say- I forget) were signed by the same person. Cheeky, that, but they got away with it.

  18. Ukpe, NJ, said HAMP provides a private right of action in around 2009, think it was. It’s a scribd, but misspelled as ‘upke”.

  19. “MS –Title never ever executes a live note . Title does not hold the note they hold the deed of trust they recorded. The note MUST be in the hands oftheparty making the ABA wire in advance of any funds being released ….”

    Sorry, MS, maybe the note is supposed to be in the hands of the ‘payee’, loosely, prior to funds being released, but in reality, it doesn’t happen, not on a purchase, for sure (where docs are signed and funds change hands pretty much concurrently, unlike a refi with a three day right of rescission). Title companies present closing docs, including the note, often in their own offices, and that’s where the note is when the funds are released. That a note should be in the hands of the payee or anyone else before funds are released – got me, but in fact, that’s not how it goes, at least not with a purchase. Now lenders one day call the TC its agent, and the next not, depending on what they need. Case law is split, as I recall ,on that agency.
    And ftr, the tc doesn’t hold the dot generally after recordation. It’s more often sent to some mysterious dark hole in Texas after recordation.
    I don’t see what you said as highly significant, but still wanted to set it straight just in case. I know of no law which says what you said, so I’m thinking it’s contractual between the wirer and the warehouse line provider.

  20. Judge Ramos also said unequivocally that MERS is NOT a beneficiary, despite the language of the Deeds of Trust!

    OMG The judge is throwing away a great argument !
    (hint by LivingLoins own admission ….they lost the note !)

  21. Leave a Reply

    Not one person has been prosecuted, not one statement has been made acknowledging the crimes, the continuing deceit in sworn filings with regulators, and the continuing drain on the economy and our ability to finance and capitalize on innovation to replace the lost productivity in real goods and services.

    MS –> What they did was legal and what they got caught in was a market implosion. You agreed to the conditions for transacting and your HUD 1 statement is the prima fascia for enforcing your a civil breech and right to remedy upon presenting your discovery – do it in an out of court settlement vs litgants claim

    So what is the evidence and what is your claim? Not one person has been prosecuted, nor a statement is necessary acknowledging the crimes if the claims are misstated and the pleadings all wrong.

    Registerclaims@live.com,

  22. Huffing&Puffing Post

    Mortgage servicers have made mistakes including sloppy payment processing, poor communications with consumers and insufficient programs to ensure compliance with federal laws, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said in a report.

    MS there is no Mortgage servicer in a securties offering

    The CFPB did not name any specific firms.
    MS I wonder why ?

    When the bureau’s examiners found problems, they alerted the companies and “when appropriate, opened CFPB investigations for potential enforcement actions,” the bureau said in a statement.

    The consumer bureau was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law and given oversight of consumer products including mortgages and credit cards.

    MS Credit cards they own and can service ….but mortages are not allowed servicing ….

    Problems with servicing have been a focus for regulators since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, when poor communication with borrowers and such as “robo-signing” foreclosure documents contributed to millions of people losing their homes.

    OMG ROBO Signors …did they say Robo or Hobo Signors

    A fictitious endorsement amogst inner party creditors is allowed – under a mergers and aquisitions deal structure by “stepped” GAAP method and procedures

    To the members of my industry past – your right ;
    they cannot get it!

  23. Hi Christine , thanks for your support . So Tolle ….You are in litigation and sitting on a goldmine – But cannot even tell a judge why the court should dimiss the lenders claims for lack of capacity to prosecute the note. Set aside theinternet and my internet record and internet shlomo. Look what is happeing here. You cannot punch ina winning argument to close your case and be done with it . Why . You dont know why the note is lost to the parties forelcosing. You want to talk about gibberish and I want to talk about why your not claiming back your title. You want me to talk about the internet gibberish and you cannot tell us why they cannot produce the note. You know there is a reason beyond the understanding of the lay person…My counsel was on the line when a major eastern state AG asked my opinion . Come on , your family and loved ones , lover maybe -i dont know and dont care , but they are all counting on you so tell us …why is there a note controversy and if its a substantive argument why are you not motioning the court for dismissal. Ask me …can you do it …ask Garfield …..ask Garfield to ask me . better yet , let me see your moton to the court to address a years hiatus and demand for the note to continue the case . Do it

  24. “Real Meathead…” Remarkable, coming from a dickhead…

  25. No. What E. Toolio actually said was, “MS, the internet never forgets. Enthrall us with all of the client accolades from Nationwide Loan Services, will you?

  26. E. Toolio Said:

    banks/servicers don’t posses the original notes
    **WHY Genius …Over a year and you dont know why ….Im for hire ? Ahhhh

    they never transferred mortgages to REMIC trusts, **WHY Genius …agains Whyyyyyyyy Over a year and you dont know why ….? Ahhhh

    and on top of this all, the chain of assignments are broken!
    Now lets make a gentlemens bet – If I tell you why ….I mean if you really want to know ….

    Step by step this fraud is being uncovered and we, the victims, are patiently waiting for our day in court
    **Over a year and your sqandering away your rights or wauiting for them to ripen . Sit on your rights and you LOOse them (Maybe it was just meant to be Pal )

    Dont talk trash now. Want to know Ill tell you if you r nice . Why is there no note to be found (Hmmmm)

    registerclaims@live.com

  27. Leave a Reply

    Niedemeyer ‘

    MS–The blank endorsement is for bailment purposes .

    That was the intention.
    MS –There is no obligation to give a borrower disclosures for a secondary trade. These balnk notes secure the warehouse lending and collateral PTF (at this stage)

    …witheld from the borrower and executed by the title/closing company immediately transferring the note.

    MS –Title never ever executes a live note . Title does not hold the note they hold the deed of trust they recorded. The note MUST be in the hands oftheparty making the ABA wire in advance of any funds being released ….

    My boy , your way offandpleading somthing the someone else is feeding you bull ….

    Now what about that high lead content in theChinse Crisy Chicken and shorter days in Japan , and Singapore airlines .

    write us at roboclaims&blogger_games.com

  28. For a split second, I forgot who i was addressing. My mistake. Not worth the waste of energy and time…

    Sniffing too much Glue !

  29. ……I guess saving the house won’t be worth much if it sits on toxic dump
    Meathead ….Real Meathead

  30. Oops! The Huff Post took a hold of that too. Directly from Reuters. In Tokyo. And in English too. I guess saving the house won’t be worth much if it sits on toxic dump…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/fukushima-nuclear-crisis_n_3788796.html

  31. Louise,

    It sure as hell beats your country’s press, your country’s government and your country’s congress… Just happens that BBC writes in the ONLY language your can read and it is the ONLY window to the world you can understand. Fukushima happens to be a major concern worldwide. But then again, how would you know?

    For a split second, I forgot who i was addressing. My mistake. Not worth the waste of energy and time…

  32. C, do you think the BBC is a good source for news of the world or should I look elsewhere?

  33. Louise,

    The comet named Ison or Nibiru or whatever else isn’t our biggest problem. Fukushima is much more worrisome in my views and just because the US don’t speak about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t represent a real danger.

    The rest of the world, as usual, is on top of it. In this country, government and Congress consistently hide the truth. the result is that, where scientists would be more than able to come up with solutions, hiding the urgency is taking away the incentive to act. As usual. This country is the ONLY one that hasn’t jailed ONE banker either. Europe has jailed a few… Germany, Sweden, France, even the UK has. So have Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Malaysia, Iran and China just chop their heads off.

    Here? We give them more money for such a job well done.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345

    21 August 2013 Last updated at 12:26 ET

    Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level

    “There have been leaks of water in the past but this one is being seen as the most serious to date, because of the volume – 300 tonnes of radioactive water, according to Tepco – and high levels of radioactivity in the water.

    Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) said it feared the disaster was “in some respects” beyond Tepco’s ability to cope.”

    Make no mistakes: the millions of fish bleeding from the eyes, mouth and fins are a direct result of our stupid government policies of looking for enemies everywhere to wage wars while ignoring the obvious.

  34. What’s the consensus here about TILA based on deposition statements stating that an allonge in blank was always included in the closing packet for “my” lender, witheld from the borrower and executed by the title/closing company immediately transferring the note. Seems to me that places the note SOLIDLY in the fiction category from before the beginning… The “lender” was NEVER the lender or owner as the most important aspect of the transaction (money from the allonge “transfer to” company)… was already paid before the borrower saw the note.

    What’s the best way to get damages… the more the better.

  35. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/consumer-protection-bureau_n_3790912.html

    Consumer Watchdog Says It’s Launched Investigations Into Sketchy Mortgage Servicing

  36. OOOOOO—-just in time for the SOL to run out!! Let’s all hold our collective breaths!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/justice-department-financial-crisis_n_3789673.html?ref=topbar

    Aug 21 (Reuters) – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is preparing to announce new cases related to the economic meltdown in the coming months as the Justice Department nears decisions on a number of probes involving large financial firms, the Wall Street Journal reported.

    “Anybody who’s inflicted damage on our financial markets should not be of the belief that they are out of the woods because of the passage of time,” Holder said in an interview with the Journal on Tuesday.

    He declined to discuss specific cases or say when the cases would be announced, the report said, but added that he wouldn’t leave the job before making major charging decisions on cases stemming from the 2008 financial collapse…

  37. Senator Warren’s letter to idiot/jerk Eric Holder this morning:

    http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ewlettermortgage.pdf

  38. Carie, Check out the “Source Field Investigations” by David Wilcock and his website DivineCosmos.com. Also, check out You Tube about the new object in the solar system which is affecting our sun. The proverbial S%&* is going to hit the fan.

  39. Ahh, now you are wising up. You see, the MLPA’s (assign and assump) were in place long before the first borrower went to the closing of the alleged transaction.

    The other exhibits also disclose the names of the actual originator and whose underwriting guidelines were being used.

  40. BREAKING–Bombshell from George Babcock re: MERS and Special Master Merrill Sherman:
    http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/babcock-special-master-in-mers-clothing/

  41. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac delaying write-offs of delinquent mortgages

    A government report raises questions on how Fannie and Freddie account for future losses. Mandated changes, once in effect, could eat into their profits as the housing market recovers.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fannie-freddie-loans-20130820,0,2914721.story

  42. Rats at Bank of America
    Commentary: An investment banking ethos swallowed the bank

    David Weidner’s Writing on the Wall
    Aug. 20, 2013, 6:01 a.m. EDT

    SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — At the end of the second quarter of 2008, Bank of America Corp. was on a roll.

    Chief Executive Ken Lewis had announced a deal to buy Countrywide Financial in a fire-sale deal for $4.1 billion, an acquisition that had the potential to make the bank the biggest lender in the nation. B. of A. BAC +0.99% reported a profit of $3.7 billion, and revenue was a record $20.3 billion.

    “We are pleased with these solid results in a difficult financial environment,” Lewis said in a statement, adding “our operating results were quite good virtually across all business segments.”

    But little did Lewis know, among the 208,587 employees at the bank, there was a rat.

    “I combed through these loans one by one,” the employee wrote in an email to a colleague. “None of these loans are suitable for a prime jumbo A-Credit securitization. The combination of stated docs, high combined LTV’s [loan to value ratios], exception underwriting make these loans very much alternative underwriting. Therefore, I am not comfortable adding them to the pool.”

    These concerns were ignored.

    Little did most of us know that B. of A. was about to lose its own game of dodgeball. The Countrywide deal was a disaster, hanging tens of billions of dollars in legal liability on the bank. B. of A.’s deal for Merrill Lynch later that year was nearly as troubled. And not long after the rat’s deal was sold, B. of A. couldn’t sell anymore. The risky loans went bad. The bank needed an unprecedented bailout of $45 billion from taxpayers.

    While that history is well known to us now, the tale of the rat (or rats) at Bank of America was, until recently, mostly unknown. The story was told in a 73-page civil lawsuit against the bank filed Aug. 6 in U.S. District Court in Charlotte, N.C. The Justice Department is seeking unspecified damages against the bank for the deal.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rats-at-bank-of-america-2013-08-20?link=MW_story_popular

  43. Judge OKs Citigroup’s $730 Million Bondholder Settlement Over Toxic Mortgages

    Reuters | By Jonathan Stempel Posted: 08/20/2013 7:25 pm EDT

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal judge has approved a settlement in which Citigroup Inc agreed to pay bondholders $730 million to resolve claims that the bank concealed its exposure to billions of dollars of toxic mortgage assets prior to the financial crisis.

    U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan approved the settlement on Tuesday, less than three weeks after approving a similar $590 million settlement for Citigroup shareholders.

    Lawyers for the bondholders have said the latest settlement is the second-largest recovery in securities class-action litigation ever brought on behalf of bond investors.

    The settlement resolves claims by investors who bought Citigroup bonds and preferred stock in 48 offerings between May 2006 and August 2008, in which the bank raised more than $71 billion, court papers show.

    They accused Citigroup of downplaying its exposure to roughly $166 billion of collateralized debt obligations and structured investment vehicles backed by risky assets such as subprime mortgages, overstating the credit quality of those assets and understating its reserves to offset loan losses.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/citigroup-settlement-toxic-mortgages_n_3787588.html

  44. Thankfully, this physical existence is only the beginning of our real existence—which is actually a spiritual reality…and the unprosecuted sociopathic bastards that have greed and materialism as their gods will be in for a big ol’ surprise when they pass…

    Humanity is being tested to the brink…but we will prevail.

  45. Neil Garfield posted: “How did the banks get away with it? Bribery takes many forms. It doesn’t need to be a direct payment, but merely something of value to the regulator or law enforcement officer. In this case it is the hiring of children of banking regulators in China. Ther”

  46. I also wanted to point out that I just read Travis County, Texas’ Motion to Intervene in the Nueces County v. MERS litigation! Ha! The Travis County motion calls MERS assignments “fraudulent” and Judge Ramos (who is hearing the case) has already handed MERS a defeat in their motion to dismiss. Judge Ramos also said unequivocally that MERS is NOT a beneficiary, despite the language of the Deeds of Trust!
    A discussion of the Ramos decision: http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/omg-this-anti-mers-decision-is-amazing/

  47. the attorneys are working hard to tell you that the HAMP provides no private cause of action. How about FDCPA?

    Ninth Circuit opens door for protracted HAMP litigation

    Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
    Gregory J. Marshall and Irina Tanurcov
    USA
    August 15 2013
    Dinsmore & Shohl LLP logo
    Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of two consolidated class action complaints, holding that mortgage servicers participating in the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) are contractually required to offer borrowers permanent loan modifications if they comply with standardized trial period plans. Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA and Lucia v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA.

    As background, loan servicers provide so-called trial period plans, or TPPs, to borrowers who appear eligible to participate in HAMP based on the financial information they supply, often informally and over the telephone. TPPs require borrowers to submit documentation, so servicers can verify the accuracy of the financial information they supplied, and also require borrowers to make trial payments in the meantime, which are typically less than the mortgage payments borrowers would otherwise be obligated to make under their promissory notes. The servicers are then required to report to borrowers the results and consider borrowers for alternatives if they are not HAMP eligible. The applicable TPP in Corvello/Lucia stated that “[i]f I am in compliance with this [TPP] and my representations in Section 1 continue to be true in all material respects, then the Lender will provide me with a Loan Modification Agreement ….”

    In Corvello, the borrower alleged to have signed and returned the TPP and complied with its terms. Yet, the borrower alleged that his lender never offered him a permanent modification, nor notified him that he did not qualify for one. The allegations in Lucia were the same, with the exception that the lender’s TPP was supposedly verbal. In dismissing these two class action complaints, the Northern District of California held that the allegations could not support a contract or an enforceable promise to modify the plaintiffs’ loans permanently. The District Court focused on other terms of the TPP, which stated that the loan could not be modified “unless and until” the lender sends the borrowers a “fully executed copy of a Modification Agreement.”

    Aligning itself with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012), a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, because a contrary holding would leave the loan servicer with “unfettered discretion.” Thus, according to the Ninth Circuit, once the borrower submits the required documentation and makes the trial payments, the TPP imposes a contractual obligation upon the loan servicer to either offer a permanent modification or promptly notify the borrower, in writing, that he or she does not qualify. Significantly, this contractual obligation arises regardless of whether the TPP is verbal or written.

    The panel further observed that permitting the loan servicer to retain trial payments without fulfilling any obligations under the TPP in return would work an injustice. But the opinion did not address how retention of trial payments would be unjust when the borrowers received the benefit of foreclosure forbearance in exchange for them, and when the trial payments (at least for the Lucias) were less than what the borrowers were otherwise obligated to pay under their promissory notes. Nor did the opinion address how the TPPs were supported by a valid consideration when the borrowers had a preexisting contractual duty to make their mortgage payments.

    Whether Corvello will ultimately result in the filing of more lawsuits by distressed borrowers is debatable, but it may cause borrowers and their attorneys to believe mistakenly that they can privately enforce through civil actions federal programs designed to promote voluntary loan modifications, such as HAMP. And, it will certainly result in protracted litigation for some lawsuits, because Corvello provides borrowers another liability theory that lenders will have difficulty dismissing at the early pleading stage before costly and time-consuming discovery and summary judgment motion practice become necessary.

  48. UKG, pretty sure that a gal named Senka who is posting info pertinent to Mass. is Senka Huskic of the “Foreclosure Fraud Survivors” show on blogtalkradio. She lives in Mass. She’s been profiled on Huffington Post. She’s had great guests, including George Babcock and yours truly!
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/senkalive

  49. Still here !

  50. you know this gal, Senka?

  51. Man, Senka gets around–in a good (and not naughty) way! She’s amazing!

  52. @Eule, interesting article. I’d be willing to bet that banksters everywhere wish those two authors would shut the f%$# up, as they’re digging a very deep hole with their theory that the note’s what it’s all about. Especially considering that we know the notes have gone the way of the Edsel. It’s fun to see that that info is getting out there further and further as time goes by. It’s now not just Neil and a handful of others yelling about the biggest fraud in history. Here’s the one and only comment to that American Bankster piece you referred to:

    The uproar that you and all of us are witnessing is the result of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on this country and its people. You are very well aware that majority (if not 100%) of the mortgages originated in the last ten years are fraudulent and the ownership can not be proved. The banks/servicers don’t posses the original notes (they can keep checking their files, but I’ve been waiting for over a year to get a proof that “my lender” has the original note), they never transferred mortgages to REMIC trusts, and on top of this all, the chain of assignments are broken! Step by step this fraud is being uncovered and we, the victims, are patiently waiting for our day in court🙂

    The following text citation from MA Practice Series: Real Estate Law with Form (4th ed. 2004 & Supp. 2009-2010)
    – A leading Massachusetts treatise, Howard J. Alperin, 14C Massachusetts Practice: Summary of Basic Law, chapter 15.126 (4th ed. & Supp. 2009-2010), summarizes rules as follows:
    BOTH, the obligation (the note) and the security interest (the mortgage) MUST be transferred to the same person, because “a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by ti. The security cannot be separated from the debt and exist independently of it.”

    And let me remind you of the most important law for MBS:
    Relevance of New York Trust Law – EPT. LAW S 7-2.1: NY Code – Section 7-2.1
    The endorsement on the most Notes purportedly held in private Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) Trusts are in blank and missing the endorsement to the “Depositor”. Such understatement are not complaint wit the conveyance law of New York Trust which is the controlling law of most private MBS Trusts.
    Pursuant to EPT. LAW S 7-2.1: NY Code – Section 7-2.1: Extent of trustee’s estate, subsection (c)
    “A trust as described in sections 9-1.5, 9-1.6 and 9-1.7 of the estates, powers and trusts law, including a business trust as defined in subdivision two of section two of the general associations law, may acquire property in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust.”
    Notes endorsed in blank can not be lawfully the asset of the private MBS Trust established under New York trust law. Consequently the alleged servicer of the Trust has no entitlement to enforce the Note.

    Posted by Senka | Thursday, May 03 2012 at 10:22PM ET

  53. Eule,

    Isn’t that 18 months old?

  54. “Everybody knows the dice are loaded/everybody rolls with their fingers crossed/Everybody knows the war is over/Everybody knows the good guys lost/Everybody knows the fight was fixed/The poor stay poor and the rich get rich/That’s how it goes/And everybody knows…”

    Yes, we do know. So what do we do with the knowledge?

  55. What the greatest criminal defense lawyer has to say about this government and justice in this country. Short video (less than 2 minutes).

  56. Fort Knox is Empty (the Gold’s Missing)…
    I have a troubling situation to discuss.

    Whispers are swirling around Capitol Hill that Fort Knox is empty…. [whispers have been swirling worldwide for years about it]

    That all the gold is gone…

    That the U.S. government has been shipping gold to nations like China (as collateral for a weak dollar).

    Scary isn’t it? [Especially because Germany wants its gold and the US no longer has it.

    Without any gold in Fort Knox, the United States has nothing backing the dollar but faith.

    Here’s what Wall Street Daily analysts have confirmed…

    The U.S. government has NOT done a public audit of the gold in Fort Knox since 1974. Policymakers have ignored all requests for a new audit, too.

    Worse yet, $982 million worth of gold has left JFK International Airport in New York since the year began.

    The destination? Somewhere in South Africa.

    The gold shipment was confirmed by the U.S. Census Bureau’s foreign trade division.

    That begs the following question…

    Do you think Fort Knox is empty?

    Yes or No.

    I’ve seen the poll results, and they’re shocking.

    Your vote will also trigger the entire investigation Wall Street Daily recently conducted on Fort Knox being empty, including an exclusive interview with JIM ROGERS.

    Expect the investigative email, with a link to the Jim Rogers interview, to hit your inbox a few minutes after you vote.

    Thank you for your time on this urgent matter,

    Robert Williams
    Publisher, Wall Street Daily

    Of course it is! Strauss-Kahn visit of May 2011 was solely for the purpose of auditing Fort Knox. The entire world knows it. Who replaced him? Lagarde. A noted antitrust and labor lawyer. It will not blow away. The US have been completely bankrupt for decades. Just for the hell of it, why has Ron Paul been harping about the gold for 20 years?

  57. McDonald’s. Coca-Cola. FDA. Pharma. Oil industry. The systematic poisoning of earth population. But thanks to internet, people can find out and decide to avoid all fast-food those places. Oh… and banks are behind all of that. Any question?

  58. Here is the problem: the Spitzers of this world, who may otherwise be very articulate and legitimately concerned for the well-being of the people, also have a major flaw: a weakness so haunting to them that they easily become the target of the cabal as soon as they try to oppose it.

    Happened to Billy Boy Clinton (same weakness, incidentally. A loose zipper…), happened to many others. Once the weakness is known by the cabal, they get set up and blackmailed into submission (and very well rewarded for it afterwards) Ask Dominique Strauss-Kahn. When he demanded to audit the US gold reserves and openly declared that his mission and IMF’s were to redistribute the wealth equitably worldwide, he was set up right where his major weakness was; the loose zipper. That’s how that handful of individuals has always operated and will continue to do so until people realize what’s been going on for centuries and decide once and for all what the priorities are: leaders with integrity, honesty, moral courage and enough good sense to keep it zipped and/or corked.

    Obama is still alive and was reelected. He has played the game of the banks all along. the question to ask is… what do they have on him that caused such a dichotomy between what he stood for way back when and his actions as a president? What scared him into submission and treason of the people who elected him?

    Don’t believe me? Listen to the 8 hour-long interview given by Kay Griggs and look at everything she produced as evidence. It is a known fact: this country is a puppet of the cabal (or any other name you want to give it.)

    http://www.bladi.net/forum/threads/kay-griggs-colonels-wife-tell-all-interview.349233/

    And i don’t easily give in to conspiracy theories. I want solid evidence first. We have it. It’s coming out slowly.

  59. “How did the banks get away with it?” Is that a rhetorical question?

    Let’s just ask Eleanor Holmes Norton. I hear she has first-hand knowledge of… bribery!

  60. Reading Szymoniak complaint should make Congress fine the OCC and Federal Reserve for the IFR settlement because the government was aware and already paid out award monies for the assignment Fraud yet when the OCC and the review board was faced with exactly that claim the failed to address the specific acted uncovered by Szymoniak.

    The OCC is corrupt or the stupidest group of people on Earth and I am lending to the 2nd, because they just are not bright enough to have been a part of this plot!

  61. Because you can’t reason with the likes of this….in Eliot Spitzer’s own words….

    Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. . . . These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

    Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. . . . [A]s New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. . . .

    Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye. . . . The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). . . . In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

    It’s them or us.

  62. The judges all have a conflict of interest in that their pensions are invested in mortgage backed securities. This has been going on for quite some time. The clerks of court and the entire state and county employees are invested in mortgage back securities. Believe it or not, there are lawsuits by these pensioners against the banks for selling them bad investments of MBS’s. The judges are still finding for the banks and not the homeowners. They can’t even see their own ass is on the line.

  63. Study the Assignment….

    Track the money….

    The rest will be easy….

    Nothing easy about this. Wresting power back from crusty old white guys wearing black robes that they believe makes them invincible and untouchable is a tough row to hoe. Weeds are everywhere. When 99.9% of Justice Incorporated totes the bankster meme that borrowers didn’t make their payment, and that it’s Okie Dokie to trash the title chain in the pursuit of huge profits, no amount of discourse will save the day. Oh, and there’s that little-known fact that the Black Ones are totally vested pension-wise in all-things bankster-related.

    Until they and their machine are dismantled entirely, nothing will change. Let’s face facts….the Securitization Machine has boiled down to this nutshell….it’s Us vs. Them. We cannot coexist. Their totally fallible belief that they should be the landlords of our existence has to go. As the Hopi say so well, it’s Koyaanisqatsi, which translates to “an unbalanced life.” This degraded life that they ardently support suggests in every way that we find a new way to live, without their usurpation.

    Life is pure and free….when unfettered from their exploitation….not meant to be lived with the irritating grate of their machine day and night.

    Don’t grease their gears. Withdraw. Stop feeding the Robes.

  64. They not only took our down payments, monies paid for improving the properties, the properties themselves, they shortened our life expectancies with the incredible stress they visited upon us

  65. How right you are Neil, how many homeowners
    like me did many years of labor to end up ousted
    from our properties?

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

%d bloggers like this: