Basic Pleading Defects Reveal Fatal Flaws in Foreclosures

 

I have frequently made the point that if you want to protect your case on appeal, you must have a coherent and accurate record established in the court file or you will be shunted away on a technicality of some sort. The strategy I endorse, and the only one I use is aggressive litigation from the start. This alone will help remove your case from the pile of deadbeat borrowers who are just trying to string out the inevitable. In order to do that, you must reject the paradigm that the debt, loan, note, mortgage, default and notice of default are valid and that the sale was valid. In order to do that you need to do your research. It is my opinion that there is going to be a wave of malpractice suits against lawyers who told their clients “there is nothing you can do.”

In most cases, this is not true. There are plenty of defenses, chief among them PAYMENT and denial that the contract was ever formed — because neither the forecloser nor any of its predecessors loaned any money to the homeowner.

The flip side of the coin is also true. If the other side pleads improperly and fails to prove their case, they have a poor record for appeal and usually won’t. Applying basic rules of law and pleading, it is apparent that most foreclosures are based on pleadings that don’t have two essential ingredients. They don’t allege that the borrower received money from the forecloser or its predecessor and they don’t allege financial injury. The first defect leads to the conclusion that there can be no injury if the loan was not made by the forecloser or its predecessors. The second defect fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.

It is well-settled in the law that in order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction the Pleader must allege an injury that is recognizable by law. This allegation is required in every type of lawsuit. It is equally well-settled that the Pleader must allege a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted. Further, it is well settled that the facts alleged cannot be formulaic conclusions. —- a point that is always hammered by the Banks when confronted with a claim or counterclaim from homeowners. They are right. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

In the days before the dust cloud of sham securitizations a Bank had to allege it made a loan to the homeowner or that it had purchased a loan, or acquired it through merger from an entity that made the loan. Why then are Banks skipping this essential allegation? And why are the Banks avoiding any allegation that they suffered financial injury?

In the old days if a lawyer went to court on an uncontested Motion for Summary Judgment, if his pleading and affidavit did not allege and prove the existence of the loan he was sent packing until he could come back with his papers in order. In other words, in uncontested hearings where the homeowner did not even show up, the Judge denied or continued the Motion for Summary Judgment where the Bank failed to allege the loan and failed to allege financial injury.

Fast forward to 2013. Foreclosers routinely omit any allegation that the borrower received a loan from the entity foreclosing on the house. They routinely omit any allegation of financial injury. Instead, they merely assert they are the holder of the note and mortgage. This is important because allowing the Banks to avoid alleging the existence of the loan shifts the burden of pleading and proof onto the Homeowner, thus leaving the hapless homeowner with the burden of chasing a ghost instead of simply defending their property.

If the Banks were required to plead that a loan was given to the borrower and the lender in that transaction was the Foreclosers or that it had purchased the loan, the Bank has the burden of proving the existence of the loan. So why did Banks stop pleading the loan? And why did they stop pleading financial injury?

The answer is simple. They didn’t make the loan and they don’t own the loan. Wall Street Banks created a cloud in which they controlled all the appearances and illusions starting with conflicting paperwork given to the lenders (investors) and borrowers (homeowners). If lawyers fail to deny or at least state they are without knowledge as to the essential allegations of the complaint they are making a mistake — one that will move the case inexorably toward foreclosure. If lawyers fail to seek dismissal of the case or vacation of the notice of sale (non-judicial states) on the basis that that the forecloser does not claim to be the lender or even represent the lender and that the lender does not allege financial injury they are making a mistake that will cost them in the trial court and on appeal.

Most lawyers are timid about taking this position despite the glaring absence of the allegations from the banks. They feel they will make fools of themselves by denying the existence of the debt, note, mortgage, and default when they know their client received a loan. Money was on the table. How can you deny that?

The answer is that if the money didn’t come from the payee on the note, the mortgagee on the mortgage, the beneficiary under the deed of trust, then they cannot have any injury. And if they are not the actual owner of an unpaid account receivable, then they cannot submit a credit bid at eh auction. The banks know this. That is why they do a substitution of trustee in 100% of the cases brought to foreclosure in non-judicial states. Because if the original trustee was left there, the trustee might actually do his job — and inquire where this new beneficiary came from and how they stand to lose any money through non payment by the homeowner.

And there is another reason why the banks avoid such issues like the plague. If they open up the issue of payments and money, then the inquiry in discovery will be about money, where it came from, where it went, who was paid, and when they were paid. If that cloud created by the illusion of securitization contains evidence of a principal agent relationship between the lenders (investors in mortgage bonds) and the third party intermediaries (investment banks and affiliates) then the money received for insurance, CDS, guarantees, and proceeds of sale to the Federal Reserve will reduce the accounts receivable and require a reduction in the accounts payable from the homeowners. And if that happens, the insurers and everyone else are going to be making claims based upon multiple payments on the same claim for a loss that the bank never incurred because it was always playing with investor money.

42 Responses

  1. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  2. […] Basic Pleading Defects Reveal Fatal Flaws in Foreclosures (livinglies.wordpress.com) […]

  3. And also thank you for reiterating that it’s (one’s own) injury which invokes jurisdiction.

  4. Neil said:

    “If that cloud created by the illusion of securitization contains evidence of a
    principal agent relationship between the lenders (investors in mortgage bonds) and the third party intermediaries (investment banks and affiliates)

    then the money received for insurance, CDS, guarantees, and proceeds of sale to the Federal Reserve will reduce the accounts receivable and require a reduction in the accounts payable from the homeowners….”

    Excellent point about an agency – thank you!

  5. Every Federal Judge whether they want it to become public knowledge or not knows and understand the law under our Constitution and that the banks can’t engage in origination fraud against us the property owners and against the investors.
    The judges cannot fake it forever – the natives have gotten restless.

  6. Back in 1997 while the case Marilyn Lane v. Astoria Federal S & l/successor in interest to Fidelity NY FSB was docketed and under the jurisdiction of the Southern District of NY
    the Hon. Louis L Stanton ruled for me the homeowner against the Banks
    origination fraud and Astoria Federal trying to foreclose on a fake debt.

  7. The equation -99% = +1% has been around for ages. This is from A Modest Proposal, written in 1729. I’m surprised our modern day plutocrats haven’t hit on this notion yet. I have no doubt they will:

    I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy Child well Nursed is at a year Old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome Food, whether Stewed, Roasted, Baked, or Boyled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a Fricasie, or Ragoust.

    I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand Children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for Breed, whereof only one fourth part to be Males, which is more than we allow to Sheep, black Cattle, or Swine, and my reason is, that these Children are seldom the Fruits of Marriage, a Circumstance not much regarded by our Savages, therefore, one Male will be sufficient to serve four Females. That the remaining hundred thousand may at a year Old be offered in Sale to the persons of Quality, and Fortune, through the Kingdom, always advising the Mother to let them Suck plentifully in the last Month, so as to render them Plump, and Fat for a good Table. A Child will make two Dishes at an Entertainment for Friends, and when the Family dines alone, the fore or hind Quarter will make a reasonable Dish, and seasoned with a little Pepper or Salt will be very good Boiled on the fourth Day, especially in Winter.

    I have reckoned upon a Medium, that a Child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar Year if tollerably nursed encreaseth to 28 Pounds.

    I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for Landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children.

    Maybe that’s what Holder and Dimon discussed….

  8. Subject: File No. S7-35-11
    From: marilyn h Lane
    Affiliation: concerned individual

    September 5, 2011

    The abominable banking system that is in place today, gives a bank great incentive to foreclose on an Ultra Vires contract, as the bank demands lawful money returned for the unlawful money lent.

    By what Authority are the Banks doing this? There is no authority for doing this. This is in complete prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl1 of our US Constitution.

    All of our cases with slightly different facts all stem from the same Fraud.
    The Bank did not lend you LAWFUL MONEY but the Bank intentionally wrote
    a bad check and gave it to you –to circulate as money

    I certainly did not know this kind of fraud was going on when I signed my mortgage and note. Did you?

    The Mortgagor puts up a down payment, the Mortgagor pays a lot of fees and probably paid an attorney to represent them, all in order to get this bad check

    Would a Mortgagor have put in all that money, if one knew the truth of how the Banks ran their illegal business. I bet not.

    Did anyone notify you after that big day – the Banks check bounced – of course not. When the check that the Bank wrote came back to the Bank that wrote it, the bank didnt say we only have 5% , if that much and it was not stamped insufficient funds the bank stamped it paid

    So since the Bank did not have the money sitting in the banks account when they wrote the check, what the bank gave you is their credit.

    That is exactly what is prohibited by Art. 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the US Constitution.

    What authority gives the Bank the right to make contracts with bad checks

    Nothing- Nada.

    Lawful money is needed to make a contract valid.

    Over and Over Mortgagors gave a Bank a mortgage on their castle , in return for a Bank giving you a credit entry on their books and charging you Interest on this credit. Also illegal.

    Did the Bank give you lawful money or is that what you got, credit?

    Banks are not allowed to lend their credit- Banks are in the business to lend
    lawful money There is not a Bank charter that allows a Bank to lend their credit.

    And as we continued to make monthly payments the Bank collected more money on their fraud.

    You try writing a check when you dont have funds sitting in your account to cover it.
    You can be sure that check is coming back markedinsufficient funds You are not allowed to do it and either is a Bank.

    This scam of Ultra Vire contracts caused injury to us, the true homeowners.

    In addition the banks are laundering bad checks.

    The Banks violate Truth in Lending Laws.

    The Banks are collecting Interest on money that doesnt exist. (Lending you 5% and collecting Interest on 95% of thin air)

    And once the Bank gets their Ultra Vire contract going, they start flipping them to MERS, Securitizations , Wall Street, Title Companies etc. there is no shortage of people all wanting to get their piece of the illegal profits

  9. Issuer of MBS is technically a debtor, no? (GNMA anywho, if you want to afford the investors already funded/bought loans) They owe a debt, hence passing the pie to the investors each month…
    409.318  No interest retained in right to payment that is sold; rights and title of seller of account or chattel paper with respect to creditors and purchasers.
    (1)  Seller retains no interest. A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the collateral sold.
    Swing in the dark….such a nice theory isn’t it?

  10. Something big is really happening. Here is an audio of US district court hearings on Detroit’s bankruptcy. I have no idea who the guy is who made the speech. What is absolutely remarkable is that:
    1) he was allowed to go on with what appears as “utmost fringe theories”
    2) the judge strongly advised the receiver and city administrators to read all the pleadings, listen to the audio and understand what the people are actually claiming.

    Is this going anywhere? No idea. But it was listened to and heard by the court. And commented upon as having merit. That’s huge!

  11. Citigroup To Pay Freddie Mac $395 Million To Settle Flawed Mortgage Claims

    Reuters | Posted: 09/25/2013 5:20 pm EDT

    By Jonathan Stempel

    Sept 25 (Reuters) – Citigroup Inc on Wednesday said it agreed to pay $395 million to Freddie Mac to resolve claims of potential flaws in roughly 3.7 million mortgages it sold to the housing finance company from 2000 to 2012.

    Citigroup, the third-largest U.S. bank, said the settlement also covers potential future claims arising from the loans bought by Freddie Mac, a large purchaser and guarantor of home loans.

    The deal follows an agreement by Citigroup in July to pay $968 million to settle similar claims by Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. mortgage finance company. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the federal government in 2008.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/citigroup-freddie-mac_n_3991796.html

  12. The country’s frickin’ broke. Once again, we’re getting half the story. The debt ceiling was pierced 6 months ago and the feds stopped tallying after 98 billion in the hole. We ain’t got no “30 billions in hand”. That push by Kerry to get all guns banned, right now, right this minute, now, now, now, isn’t coming out of the blue: government is very, very concerned that it is about to blow up worldwide! And anyone with an IQ of 45 can see that. Better disarm the world real fast before it implodes. ‘Cuz the way things are, it will.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-26/baum-on-money-jack-lew-s-dear-john-letter.html

    Baum on Money: Jack Lew’s ‘Dear John’ Letter
    By Caroline Baum Sep 26, 2013 6:29 AM ET

    Good morning, all. It’s one day closer than yesterday to a potential government shutdown. Fasten your seat belts — and enjoy today’s reads.

    Jack Lew’s ‘Dear John’ letter

    Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote to House Majority Leader John Boehner yesterday to deliver the bad news. By Oct. 17, the Treasury will be out of options — shifting money between government accounts — to pay its bills. The $30 billion on hand at that point will be “insufficient” to meet its obligations, which on some days can amount to $60 billion, Lew writes. So please stop monkeying around with riders to defund Obamacare and pass a clean bill to increase the debt ceiling. Many thanks and much love, (curlicue signature).

  13. Victory: Senate to Kill Monsanto Protection Act Amid Outrage

    Anthony Gucciardi

    September 25th, 2013
    Updated 09/25/2013 at 6:41 pm

    In a major victory brought upon by serious activism and public outrage, new legislation changes will shut down the Monsanto Protection Act rider that granted Monsanto protection from legal action and was set to renew on September 30th.

    Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/victory-senate-to-kill-monsanto-protection-act-amid-outrage/#ixzz2fxd5R2DV
    Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

    When all is said and done, we’ll look back and think: “Holy smoke! The new Tower of Babel got this close to being built! Right under our collective noses! There is a Gawd after all!”

  14. Didn’t JDB Midland Funding recently get in trouble?

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2013/2013-ohio-4150.pdf

    Affirmed in part, denied in part, remanded.

    {¶1}
    Appellant Jeffery Biehl, aka Jeffrey Biehl, appeals the decision of the
    Massillon Municipal Court, Stark County, which granted a monetary judgment in favor of Appellee Midland Funding, LLC [JDB] in a collection action initiated by appellee. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

    {¶24} We find a similar result is warranted in the case sub judice. In other words, although appellee herein attached (1) the affidavit from Ms. Haag generally averring that the HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. account no. xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-4894 had been assigned to appellee, (2) copies of several credit card statements showing purchases and payments on account no. xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-4894, and (3) the one-page bill of sale between HSBC Card Services and Appellee Midland from May 28, 2009, we hold there Stark County, Case No. 2013 CA 00035 7 was insufficient information to enable the trial court to determine as a matter of law that account no. xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-4894 was actually included in the group of accounts affected by the bill of sale and thus duly assigned to appellee for purposes of summary judgment.

    {¶25} Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Midland.

    {¶26} Appellant’s Second Assignment of Error is sustained.

  15. The economy is doing just peachy! Obama told us so. And the feds are optimistic!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-25/wal-mart-nails-consumer-recovery-coffin-shut

    Wal-Mart Nails The “Consumer Recovery” Coffin Shut

    2013-09-25 — zerohedge.com

    “WAL-MART CUTTING ORDERS (In Q3 & Q4) AS UNSOLD MERCHANDISE PILES UP IN U.S… So, it seems the “if we build it (or stock it), they will come (and buy)” mentaility has failed yet again… As we noted before, as goes Wal-Mart, so goes America…”” — Could it be prices of Chinese-sourced goods actually starting to rise?

  16. EULE,

    11 billion, huh? That tells me that they still to have that kind of money… for now. Oh wait! Isn’t that our money?

  17. How would you like to learn that, in order to meet their account-opening quotas, WF managers forged your signature to open a new account in your name…? Now isn’t that a real doozy?

    I have to say: Chase sold me a “free” bank account, way back then, when I was looking at loan mods. No fees, no maintenance charge, no nothing. They said i needed to show regular income and it would be easier with a Chase free account in which to put all my earnings. Except that the free account cost me $29/mo.: automatic withdrawals of my mortgage cost that much every month and it was a prerequisite to qualify for the account. Needless to say, the day they said I didn’t qualify for a mod because i wasn’t at least 60 days behind in my payments, I closed the damn thing presto.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/13/61123.htm

  18. Oh, Christine, don’t misunderstand me. I’m on top of the world! I was just pointing out that the government foot dragging has a reason behind it. The problem for the banks is that as the frauds are discovered, new SOL’s start tolling from the date of discovery. This isn’t over by a long shot.

  19. Couple questions if anyone cares to take a stab at them.

    When Nationstar purchased the Aurora Loan Portfolio what obligation due they have to verify Aurora records are accurate? I ask because Aurora was issued the Cease and Desist for various reasons. We know that Both Aurora and Nationstar are subject to FDCPA.

    I had previously advised Aurora that there were underwriting errors in my loan. They proceeded to attempt to foreclose and basically said they had no knowledge of any errors. Even though I pointed out Income to Debt Ratio based on the first year payment and other errors. They sold the loan portfolio to Nationstar and turned around the “defunct” broker listed on my DOT and won a default judgment for several loans issued by the broker. Lehman/Aurora claimed the broker submitted loans that violated the terms of they’re purcahse agreement I believe. They sued the broker for breach of contract.

    Shouldn’t Nationstar conduct an indepent review based on Aurora’s tarnished track record and the fact that they sued the broker for essential what I was advising them happened to me? Any thoughts would be helpful

  20. Foreclosures and all the other crap that’s going on everywhere is all related to the greed and sociopathic materialism of the corporations that own everything…independent investigation of truth is what the people need to do:

    Good info here:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/

  21. UKG,

    Don’t hang on that one bad case. Please. Look at the bigger picture. We are at the 11th hour and things are happening nationwide and worldwide. If things don’t look rosy from your end, see what your can do to buy some time and make it to the 11th hour. I know you’ll regret not having held just a little bit longer. Just a little bit longer…

  22. Here is the reason there have been no prosecutions on Wall Street…but we knew that, didn’t we?

    http://www.americanbanker.com/syndication/wells-fargo-judge-tosses-some-fraud-claims-as-too-late-1062382-1.html

  23. A taste of their own medicine: negotiating settlements to be yet hit from another angle almost immediately. I kinda love it. Just what they put homeowners, investors and world economies through. And denying wrongdoing ain’t such a good idea either. For some [odd] reason, more and more people appear to want to see human heads rolling… My personal Christmas list is that Jamie Boy will still be the CEO when the whole thing collapses and he’ll be the last man standing. I expect he hasn’t been sleeping too well lately but I want him to really, really get a feel for homeowners’ sleepless nights. And i want it to last 4 or 5 years. I want his BP to shoot through the roof, his insurance to become medicaid or some variation of it and his JPM and Monsanto shares to tank so badly that he’s left just with his Armani suit on the back and not much else. Then he’ll be one of us.

    Call me petty…

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/jpmorgans-legal-hurdles-expected-to-multiply/?ref=morganjpchaseandcompany&_r=0

    JPMorgan’s Legal Hurdles Expected to Multiply

    By BEN PROTESS and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG

    “… The wrangling over the mortgage cases and the trading loss investigation illustrate JPMorgan’s legal quandary. If it settles with authorities, the bank must accept steep fines or concede embarrassing admissions. But if it adopts a more hardball approach, the bank can anger government authorities, prompting years of litigation.

    Even a conciliatory stance does not always placate the government. Just days after JPMorgan paid $410 million to the nation’s energy regulator to resolve claims the bank devised “manipulative schemes” to transform “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” federal prosecutors in Manhattan opened an investigation into the same activity.

    The difficult legal choices being weighed by the bank — should it settle or should it fight — coincide with an unusual wave of scrutiny for JPMorgan, which is now facing investigations from at least seven federal agencies, several state regulators and two foreign nations. The investigations span across the bank. Its mortgage business, debt collection practices and its hiring of the children of well-connected Chinese officials are all under fire in Washington.

    And the threats of litigation from the commodities regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, come on top of $920 million in fines JPMorgan paid last week to four other regulators investigating the London trading loss. (In another settlement announced last week, JPMorgan agreed to pay $80 million to regulators over accusations that it charged credit card customers for identity theft products they never received.) …”

  24. I continue to see suits against the banks that will end up being settled, but no one seems to talk about the individuals that got loans based on the underwriting dept waiving requirements or flat out lying so they could process the loan, many times even betting on the eventual default. Those loans are predatory, but don’t hear that the govt and these agencies do anything about that. Those are swept under the rug and banks allowed to proceed with foreclosure, as in most cases, the borrower is not aware or can’t defend. Oh, I forgot – those owners who lost their house did get compensated – wasn’t it for somewhere between $100 and $3000 in most cases? And still none of the players end up in jail! Of course, someone did post the article that showed that the firm Holder used to work for is involved in the scheme – http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/tbtf-has-met-its-waterloo/

  25. I missed that one! Have we finally reached the day of reckoning? Is Caldwell going to call on Bill Black? Now, that would be a great new development!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-justice-nominee-idUSBRE98G1A920130917

    Obama to tap ex-Enron prosecutor to run Justice Department criminal unit

    (Reuters) – The White House said on Tuesday it planned to nominate a former prosecutor who helped build the case against Enron Corp to serve as the U.S. Justice Department’s top criminal cop.

    President Barack Obama said he would nominate Leslie Caldwell, a private lawyer who previously supervised the Justice Department’s case against one of the largest accounting frauds in U.S. history, to run the agency’s criminal division.

    Obama’s previous head of the division, Lanny Breuer, raised its profile with record financial settlements but also shouldered much of the blame for bringing few marquee cases related to the financial crisis.

    Breuer did not have prior Justice Department experience when taking the post. Caldwell has spent 17 years with the agency, as a federal prosecutor in California and New York.

    Caldwell, who was expected to be tapped for the post, also led the Enron Task Force from 2002 to 2004.

    She left before the task force’s major cases went to trial to become a partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where she has defended companies and individuals in white-collar cases.

    If confirmed, Caldwell would take the reins from Mythili Raman, who has led the division since March.

    Raman held the post in an acting capacity, after Breuer left the agency for the private sector.

  26. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-morganstanley-creditunion-lawsuit-idUSBRE98N02E20130924?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

    Regulator sues Morgan Stanley, eight others over faulty securities

    (Reuters) – A U.S. regulator filed lawsuits against Morgan Stanley and eight other banks over the sale of nearly $2.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities to two credit unions that later failed, according to a filing.

    Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Barclays, JPMorgan Chase [as usual… I wonder when they’ll be put out of our misery] & Co’s unit Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and UBS sold faulty securities to Southwest and Members United corporate credit unions, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) said in its complaint.

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Wachovia Corp, a unit of Wells Fargo & Co and Residential Funding Securities LLC, now Ally Securities, also sold faulty securities to Southwest, NCUA said.

    “We continue to pursue accountability and recovery in the wake of billions of dollars in sales of faulty securities that led to the collapse of several corporate credit unions and handed the industry the costly bill of paying for the losses,” NCUA Board Chairman Debbie Matz said.

    Southwest and Members United corporate credit unions paid more than $416 million for the securities in question in the Morgan Stanley suit and more than $1.9 billion for securities sold by the other defendants.

    The NCUA lawsuits filed in the Manhattan district court say the banks made misrepresentations in connection with the underwriting and subsequent sale of the mortgage-backed securities.

    NCUA’s complaints also allege that the offering documents of the securities sold to the failed corporate credit unions contained statements that were not true or omitted material facts.

    The banks had “abandoned the stated underwriting guidelines in the offering documents,” according to the complaints, with the result that the securities were significantly riskier than represented.

    None of the banks could immediately be reached for comment.

  27. UKG, it also says the homeowner has to post a bond. Usually it is $10,000 in my state. It is somewhat unclear how much the bond is. They are not going to let you pay as you go???

  28. The OCC has failed to file SAR to the Justice system on all these forgeries that were admitted too by Lorraine Brown as she sit in jail. The OCC wants it both ways, but they are aiding the crooks by not turning over these files to the agencies that prosecute these crimes, putting homeowners at a disadvantage in getting a report issued themselves!

  29. Is something happening of late? Can we call it a crackdown? Or is it just for show?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/td-bank-ponzi-scheme-charges_n_3976754.html

    WASHINGTON (AP) — TD Bank is paying $52.5 million to settle U.S. civil charges after regulators accused the bank of failing to report suspicious activity in accounts linked to a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced settlements Monday with the Canadian bank.

    The OCC said TD Bank failed to file suspicious activity reports to the government on the accounts of Scott Rothstein, a former Florida lawyer now serving a 50-year prison sentence for the Ponzi scheme. The SEC said the bank deceived investors by saying that it had restricted Rothstein’s transfers of money in the accounts.

    TD Bank is paying a $37.5 million penalty to the OCC and a $15 million penalty to the SEC.

  30. ToLLe,

    “But when President Barack Obama was planning his run for a second term his pollsters noticed a profound shift in the national mood. The optimism was largely gone – and with it both the excitement and the delusion. The time-honoured rhetorical appeals to a life of relentless progress, upward mobility and personal reinvention didn’t work the way they used to.”

    I wonder if it has anything to do with all that money his government stole from us to give it to the banks… or the insanity played out between the revolving doors… or even his appointing a Monsanto guy to better poison us. Hmmm… I really, really wonder why… And how on earth did he manage to get re-elected again? Oh, I forgot! The alternative was much, much worse!

    Sheesh…

  31. DOJ Prepares To Sue JPMorgan Over Mortgage Bonds

    Reuters | Posted: 09/23/2013 4:36 pm EDT

    (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department is preparing to sue JPMorgan Chase & Co over mortgage bonds it sold in the run-up to the financial crisis, a sign the bank’s legal troubles are not yet behind it.

    A lawsuit could come as early as Tuesday, people familiar with the matter said on Monday.

    JPMorgan spokesman Brian Marchiony and Justice Department spokeswoman Adora Andy Jenkins declined to comment.

    The bank disclosed in August that federal prosecutors in California were conducting criminal and civil investigations into the bank’s mortgage securities.

    In those investigations, government lawyers concluded that JPMorgan committed civil violations of securities laws in offering mortgage bonds from 2005 to 2007 that were backed by subprime and other risky residential mortgages.

    The expected charges come less than one week after the largest U.S. bank paid $1 billion to resolve investigations into its “London Whale” trading scandal and issues surrounding the wrongful billing of credit-card customers.

    It was not immediately clear whether the new charges would be civil, criminal or both. [Can we do both? Please, please, pretty pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaase?]

    A source familiar with the cases earlier told Reuters that the California probes involve mortgage bonds offered by JPMorgan itself and not those by companies it bought during the crisis.

    (Reporting by Aruna Viswanatha in Washington and Emily Flitter and David Henry in New York; Editing by Gary Hill and Andre Grenon)

  32. This one’s for you, Christine….

    The American dream has become a burden for most

  33. Ask for the receipts of payment by the banks. They did not exchange money, only the illusion of debt created out of thin air.

  34. quick question- the 4056 (not t) and the request for taxpayer id # & cert – how important is the name of the requester on it? Mine has the same date the note does, same day recorded and it’s not the original “lender” on it requesting it? Is it always WHO makes the loan that is the named ‘return to’ requester???

  35. “In the old days if a lawyer went to court on an uncontested Motion for Summary Judgment, if his pleading and affidavit did not allege and prove the existence of the loan he was sent packing until he could come back with his papers in order. In other words, in uncontested hearings where the homeowner did not even show up, the Judge denied or continued the Motion for Summary Judgment where the Bank failed to allege the loan and failed to allege financial injury.”

    Must be in the really, really, really old days… Don’t think it’s been happening for a sweet long time. Judges’ marching orders are that they have to move them cases pronto!

  36. Thank, you, NG, for reminding me to add to my appeal the reason I demanded (via statement of decision) the facts the judge used to show damages is to add fuel to the argument that the trial court’s naming of 1 of the two PETEs when NOD was recorded makes it logically impossible for either of them to have been “the beneficiary”. Had the trial court responded to my request, it might have caught the flawed logic. But then again, since it denied my discovery efforts, it may have foisted itself on its own petard.

    ‘Our enemies will bring our weapons to us’, a variation on “Give government the weapons to fight your enemy and it will use them against you.” — Harry Browne.

  37. I been trying to get you Neil to understand (but he must not actual read the comments) that the Ginnie Mae pools are the holy grail to the fraud of the MBS because they all are processed in the exact same manner, where there is not a single loan that placed into the pool that actual has a lender still attached to the Note or debt because the Note is required to be endorsed in blank and relinquished.

    However over the past 3yrs attorneys have not wanted to listen to someone else’s idea as to Ginnie Mae running a Ponzi scheme and the Federal Reserve Bank is receiving the proceeds for illegal foreclosure sales and insurance claims.

    I now get why the banks/servicers are fighting so hard to not pay the homeowner back monies because Ginnie Mae received from the banks the bulk of the monies which they paid to the Federal Reserve for the 100% guaranty insured MBS.

    The county are influenced by loan being VA or FHA loan thinking that at the start the loan are automatically government owned when in fact this is not the situation, as the loans are only process as VA or FHA qualified or not and base off that qualification the loan are granted by lenders. So local government cannot look pass the name of the loans and they allow the listed debt holders to do a host of thing as in relinquish the Notes without notifying the local land recorder of this transfer.

    The burden is on Ginnie Mae who is in physical possession of the Note by the rule of the pools, and UCC 9 places the burden on Ginnie Mae to prove it paid for the debt, which is a fact they cannot over comes as they cannot possible have purchase the debt and has also stated to the world that it cannot and does not purchase home mortgage loan or securities and also does create or sell either on these items!

  38. “leaving the hapless homeowner with the burden of chasing a ghost instead of simply defending their property.”

    hence we file a lis pendens. to lay claim and acts as a public notice that the title is slandered.

    (Pro Se lay opinion, not an attorney)

  39. Thank you
    they “HSBC” alleged they own the property (purchased at auction!- via “trustees” deed upon sale we know what is wrong with this) notice they did not allege they loaned me money but posture as beneficiary, but the IRS form 1099A was issued by the Lender- One west (BBA IndyMac mortgage servicers, debt collector. loan amount on that irs doc is different to that claimed in trustees deed , this I raised also, 90k takked on.
    in the absence of authority to substitute a trustee the sale is wholly void
    I cited Bevilacqua V Rodreiguez, Mass” Supreme Judicial Court 2011,
    regarding “one who sells under the power of sale must follow strictly its terms”
    9th circuit case 12-16192

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: