From the Handbook of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

As pointed out by a listener to the Neil Garfield Show, if you look at the Handbook version from 2007, you will see the same things — it is all abut protecting the borrower. Yet the regulators, law enforcement, legislators and Courts all seem to think the opposite — that it is all about the protection of the Banks, regardless of whether or not they are the creditors or have any actual authority to represent a creditor.
This imbalance caused the Federal government to expend trillions of dollars in the bank bailout and fiscal stimulus. In truth, had they followed their own rules and regulations, the “defaults” would largely have been nullified, the foreclosures virtually nonexistent, and the amount due to the real creditors would have been far less for each homeowner.
The homeowners didn’t need a bailout, they needed justice. Approximately $13 trillion of middle class wealth was wiped out, most of it going to the banks. If justice had prevailed, the fiscal stimulus to the economy would have set us right for decades while diminishing the power and even the existence of Mega Banks who control many of the policy makers.
Quote from 2014 Handbook: “A bank or bank operating subsidiary that originates or services mortgages is responsible for complying with applicable federal and state laws. There are a number of federal consumer protection laws and associated regulations that apply to the real estate lending activities of banks and their operating subsidiaries or service corporations, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
• Community Reinvestment Act
• Dodd–Frank (Title IX, Subtitle D)
• Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)
• Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended by the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act
• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• Fair Housing Act
• Fair Housing Home Loan Data System
• Federal privacy laws, including provision of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
• Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), section 5
• Flood Disaster Protection Act 7
• Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
• Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)
• Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (HPA)
• Homeownership counseling requirements under the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended
• Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009
• RESPA
• Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA)
• TILA

14 Responses

  1. The Foreclosure Review was administered by the OCC office of the Ombudsman and Rust Consulting, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation (for a certain N.A. bank) . If one denied the review of the foreclosure the other followed suit. The logic was based on a “Contract”.

    As the forclosure saga unfolds the “Contract” applies to only one party:
    The one who is being foreclosed on.

    The following laws protect the foreclosed party? Please explain how:

    Quote from 2014 Handbook: “A bank or bank operating subsidiary that originates or services mortgages is responsible for complying with applicable federal and state laws. There are a number of federal consumer protection laws and associated regulations that apply to the real estate lending activities of banks and their operating subsidiaries or service corporations, including, but not limited to, the following:

    • Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)

    • Community Reinvestment Act

    • Dodd–Frank (Title IX, Subtitle D)

    • Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)

    • Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended by the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act

    • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

    • Fair Housing Act

    • Fair Housing Home Loan Data System

    • Federal privacy laws, including provision of Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

    • Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), section 5

    • Flood Disaster Protection Act 7

    • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

    • Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA)

    • Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 (HPA)

    • Homeownership counseling requirements under the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended

    • Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009

    • RESPA

    • Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

    • TILA

  2. So, Ian….”IF” the debt collectors are collecting “unsecured debt”, which IS what we are talking about, how is it: the debt is either charged off or written off, AFTER being written down and bought, sold or handed off to a “foot soldier”…..where they can maintain a summary and collection of a “supposed” living, breathing, “actually” deceased promissory note from a REMIC, “With” interest and principle?

    And the REMIC; the PSA is directly related to the treatment, movement and acquisition of those “particular” statuses…..not any and all trusts.

    The nuances are very, very important, IMHO, no lawyer here. What is on paper, many times is not truthful, nor is it enforceable the way it is stated and written. Non lawyer here.

    The vast majority of foreclosures are being done under the “original” trust(s) name.

    What if your originator has gone bankrupt? How can the notes be “secured” under the original, originators name when they were broke and had to fund with lines of credit or have a fire sale of these notes? And many of the “servicing rights” have been sold making collection of these accounts dubious at best AND how is a servicer, under these conditions able to use the DOT, asking for full payment, accrued late fees and further payments….in full!

    I am not at liberty to respond completely here, the ghosts of the past linger.

    I can say this: my particular situation behaves in a way that is contrary to what many “so-called” experts claim. My note was “supposedly” sold forward from 12/26/2006, when I signed paperwork in February 2007(3 months later), when no funding was taking place, all lenders had stopped lending to these thieves. In fact: the company was taking the funding they did have and using for company expenses and ALL of the payments I made were “never” applied, defaulting the loan, before my payments were due on April 01, 2007. Just a snapshot of what the entire file reads….

    Many questions arise here.

  3. OCC is one of the most crime centers of corruption in this country & is where it all started with Larry Summers “THE ENDGAME MEMO” in late 90’s to bring down this country with unleasing banks to create bogus papers & dump on markets worldwide.

    OCC corrupt branch called “OTS” disappeared together the 2008 meltdown & together with over a thousand financial fraudster banks & mortgage companies.

    OCC ENDGAME MEMO to bring down the U.S. & the world:

  4. Poppy- as I recall, “debt collectors” only collect unsecured debt. The FDCRA only applies to unsecured debt. What does this tell us?
    Taking a cue from some of the recent large “settlements”, wherein the courts state repeatedly that the mortgages are “defective and unenforceable”. No one here explains what this means- but I take it to mean that the homeowner may owe someone something, but no one can take their home in order to satisfy the “debt”. If it hasn’t been paid in whole or in part by other co-obliges. What do you have to clear this up?

  5. The OCC “covers up” and does not regulate the banks. For years I have been complaining and sending indisputable proof of my allegations to these morons (OCC) and all they do is submit it to the criminals for an internal investigation. Really? The criminals are going to admit liability? NO! The OCC will then side with the criminals and take their word for it even if you appeal. It is a vicious cycle of worthlessness that falls on deaf ears. The OCC has only admitted their criminal wrong-doing when it comes to settlement time and time to “cash in”. Cha-ching! However. those who complained to the OCC regarding these banks’ wrong-doing get nothing. The OCC is a sham!! Another waste of our tax dollars.

  6. Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor became the latest politician to move to Wall Street, taking a high-paying job at an investment bank as vice chairman…

    vice-noun

    1. an immoral or evil habit or practice.

    Synonyms: fault, failing, foible, weakness.

    Antonyms: virtue

    2. immoral conduct; depraved or degrading behavior:
    a life of vice.

    Synonyms: depravity, sin, iniquity, wickedness, corruption.

    Antonyms: virtue, morality.

    Chairman of Vice….MSM gets it right for once….

  7. No surprises here….but I’m gonna take a stab at this: the previous post from Rock says securitization is moot anyone at any time can use the securitization as a means to foreclose, even with MERS. I strongly disagree. A very lengthy discussion and “nuances” come into play.

    There is a serious flaw in the REIT Trust and the foreclosure of the “elusive” REMIC Trust party, where the PSA is a by-product of the REMIC, not REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust).

    Also, to be investigated is the “debt collector” vs…the servicer entity. They are and have very different rules of “legal” acquirement of notes and DOT’s. The “servicer” employed under the PSA is not the same party as the “servicer” of your account in a generalized way!

    The Devil is in the details…just a lay opinion

  8. And here’s how they do it. A house bill called PATH, H.R. 2767: Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act of 2013, would make one believe that it’s legislation aimed at protecting mortgagors. Thank you house republicans, all 53 of you who saw fit to co-sponsor this helpful bill, for trying to shore up the beat-up borrowers of America….bless you all. Oh wait just a minute…

    In actuality, this is a HUGE crime-laden give-me to the banksters, and one for which every single one of these so-called representatives should be run out of DC on a rail, AFTER they’ve all been mercilessly tarred and feathered. Just a tad of research shows what this bill actually stands for after it’s stripped of its sweet sounding acronym and GOP doublespeak, from occupycorporatism.com:

    ”….the technocrats have devised a way to take the homes from ALL homeowners regardless of whether or not they have previously won during foreclosure litigation, are in the process of litigation and would file a complaint with the courts at a future date.

    One of the outcomes of PATH would be the right of the technocrats to stop current legal standing of the homeowners in court with regard to foreclosure litigation.

    Without this provision, the homeowner cannot sue to stop the foreclosure, nor can new complaints be filed with the courts.
    But one of the biggest advantages of PATH would be for the technocrats to reopen foreclosure litigation that was ruled on in favor of the homeowner.

    Just as with criminal law, the right of protection from being retried for a “crime” is protected under Jeopardy clause.

    The civil version of the Jeopardy clause works much the same of the criminal counterpart. Jeopardy can terminate “in four instances: after acquittal; after dismissal; after a mistrial; and on appeal after conviction.”

    What this means for PATH and the NMDR is that a homeowner who previously won a suit against the bank and kept their home, would now be under threat of having the case reopened under the new evidence argument.

    The bank could simply open a new case in light of PATH that would empower them bring this law in as evidence (should the law be passed). This would also allow the banks to circumvent the Ex Post Facto clause.

    By using PATH as the reason to bring old litigation to new light, this scheme would serve to give the banks a way to acquire those properties anyway.

    REV 2.0. If not now, when?

  9. Each of the so called “acts” listed above are simple smoke screens to obfuscate the theft of stuff, including millions of homes from sea to shining sea. The banksters figured out a way to convert anything of value through securitization into debt that is foreclosable. Our hard work equals their effortless gain. Now you see it, now you don’t, because they robbed us all blind.

    Through agents on K Street, campaign cash is funneled through the back doors of every single minion claiming to be in “public service” in DC. The public would do well to awaken to the criminality before another moment goes by. Boiled rope and lampposts go together well in these dark days.

    It’s time to take it all back. Unfuck it all.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it by any means necessary, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evidences a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new safeguards for their future security.

    I, for one, am tired of being used as foam for bank runways. Let them all crash and burn.

    And while the recent news that we may be about to enter a new round of heavy foreclosure activity….I say bring it on. It’s painfully obvious that in 21st century America, it doesn’t matter if your neighbor takes a swift and ruthless kick to the groin….it’s only when a similar kick is received firsthand, er…first-groin, that Americans can understand fully the piercing agony of their neighbors.

    Oh, and Neil….don’t let this turn into your very own Ferguson moment. Either refund the grand or state your case….K? Sam has both hands in the air. Your move.

  10. This is what we are up against. If Neil made a mistake I trust he will fix the problem. But some public officials are allegedly aiding and abetting. They are allegedly using the courts for their own personal enrichment.

    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=567

    NEVER AGAIN.

  11. Sam, rely on no one! Learn to do this yourself.

  12. Neil you need to return the widow mother back her money if you did not perform what was contracted! The OCC are in concert with the crooked banks!

  13. I do not know if I trust anything you say Mr. Garfield. I paid you $1000 dollars to speak with my attorney, which you never die. I have called your office many times before to try to arrange the call but never got any call backs. In my opion you seem no better than the banks. Now as a widower with three small children we are losing our home. I had high hopes you would help but rather it seems you took my money and gave me nothing. Hopefully you will see this post and return my money. Sam Bass 405-833-6889

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: